
I 



V 



THE ^SpW 



TRUE DEACON SHIP; 



STRICTURES ON A PAMPHLET 



ENTITLED, 



"THE SCRIPTURAL DEACON, &c." 



BY DAVID SMITH. 



Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back a part of the price 
of the land?" — Acts v. 3. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

WILLIAM S. YOUNG, PRINTER— 50 NORTH SIXTH ST 

1847. 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



In appearing before the public, the writer of the following 
pages makes no apology. He is aware that many, whose 
opinions are entitled to respect, regard the pamphlet reviewed 
as unworthy of notice. Its intrinsic worthlessness he would 
not affect to deny, yet it is possible it may do harm. At any 
rate, truth is always worth defending. And as truths im- 
bodied in our covenanted attainments, and sealed by the blood 
of our martyred fathers, are perverted and vilified by Mr. 
Nightingale, while at the same time he makes very high pro- 
fessions of regard for them, it has been thought a duty to un- 
mask him. The writer has acted according to his own judg- 
ment in the case. If he has done or said any thing amiss, he 
only is accountable. 

D. S. 

Philadelphia, February, 1847. 



STRICTURES, &c. 

"The Scriptural Deacon; an Inquiry into the distinct Rights of the Officers and People, in the 
Management of the temporal Concerns of the Church. By a Committee-man. 

' Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.' — Acts xxvi. 1. 

• Honour to whom honour is due.' — Romans xiii. 7. 

' Neither as being lords over God's heritage.' — 1 Peter v. 3. 

New York: printed by William Osborn, 88 William St. 1845," pp. 48. 

A pamphlet with the above imposing title, made its appearance in 
the world several months ago. Of its author we know nothing, except 
what we gather from his work. He styles himself "a committee-man,'' 
— rather an indefinite designation, we should think, as he leaves his 
readers entirely in the dark respecting the nature of the committee of 
which he is the " man." His name, however, in plain English, is John 
Nightingale, which he has set down in full at the end of his book, 
and which is of itself quite sufficient to distinguish him without the aid 
of empty titles. 

The work itself is not exactly what the title page seems to indicate, 
but rather a sort of reply to certain paragraphs and phrases selected 
from a pamphlet entitled " The Deacon," published several years ago 
by Rev. J. M. Willson, of Philadelphia. It was evidently intended by 
its author, to be an answer to that work, and doubtless he and others 
of his class, conceit, for some of them have boasted, that he has utterly 
demoli>hed " The Deacon." It is the third of a series of replies to that 
work, each by a different author. The first was the production of a 
"poor wise man" out west, entitled "The Consistory, &c," which we 
believe has almost sunk into oblivion. The second of the series was a 
very learned performance, by Rev. C. B. M'Kee, late of Rochester, 
New York, entitled " Anti-deacon," for the publication of which, he 
-was censured by Synod, in 1843. These authors all take different and 
in many respects contradictory grounds. They differ as much from 
each other, as they do from the author of "The Deacon;" and yet they 
are all lauded as most excellent performances by the friends of the trus- 
tee system. Their appearance, one after another at considerable inter- 
vals, each taking a new and opposite position, shows their own estimate 
of their success at biting a file. It indicates, moreover, that however 
they may differ on the subject of deacons, or on any other subject, there 
exists among them a remarkable unity of purpose to put down "The 
Deacon" at all hazards. Mr. M< Kee gives no sort of credit to the 
"poor wise man," the "pioneer" of trusteeism, for his commendable 
^efforts to set matters right. Nor does Mr. Nightingale give any "ho- 
nour" to either of his "illustrious predecessors," for their seasonable 
and abundant labours. Indeed, on page seven, he attempts to give some 
reasons, why " The Deacon has not been answered," taking for granted 
that notwithstanding the publication of the works referred to, it had not 
yet been answered. He even hints that no reply to it had ever been 
written — apparently not considering Mr. M'Kee's production worthy the 
name of a reply. This is neither kind nor clever of Mr. Nightingale. 

Our author appears in public as a controversialist, yet he is careful to 
have his readers understand that he is a marvellous proper man. To 
this end he politely informs us, in his introduction, that when he uses 



( 4 ) 



the term "The Deacon," which he frequently does, he uniformly refers 
to the Rev. James M. Willson — in order to avoid the appearance of 
personal disrespect. A peculiar mode of avoiding personalities, truly. 

The work begins and ends with a short advertisement addressed to 
the "Reader," in which the author expresses the hope that his readers 
" will neither refuse to read his essay, nor use their influence to keep it 
out of the hands of others." This expression of his hope, seems to us 
to be almost useless; for it is hardly to be supposed that any of his 
"readers" will not read his essay; and certainly few will use their 
influence to keep out of the hands of others a treat so rare and so rich. 

The work itself consists, in the first place, of an introduction, then 
branches out into three chapters, in the first of which the " man" of the 
committee, as our author styles himself, proposes to state the question and 
arrange the preliminaries for the onset. The second chapter is a professed 
attempt to show that "The Deacon's" claim to the management of the 
temporalities of the church is not founded in scripture. The third and 
last chapter is an attempt to prove that "The Deacon's claim is not ac- 
knowledged in the standards of the church." He then winds up the 
concern with an appendix in which he claims the action of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Synod on the subject of Deacons, at its last meeting, as 
being in accordance with his views. 

Before we proceed to a particular examination of our author's " argu- 
ments," we intend first, to notice some of the peculiarities with which 
his work abounds. In his introduction, our author with great appa- 
rent simplicity, confesses his ignorance of the principles of composition 
and correct grammatical construction,* but consoles himself with the 
reflection that his readers will generally be as ignorant as himself. 
This is quite a compliment to the intelligence of his readers, and shows 
a commendable determination on his part not to be disconcerted by 
trifles. After this confession, it might be thought that an ordinary sense 
of modesty and propriety, would have deterred him from a task to 
which he thus acknowledges himself incompetent. He says he was 
" induced " to undertake it by " a sense of duty, and the pressing solicita- 
tions of a few friends." We think most of his readers will agree with 
us when we say that had these friends advised him to attend to his bu- 
siness, and leave "The Deacon" to be answered by somebody who un- 
derstood " correct grammatical construction," they would have given 
him a more friendly advice. But he seems, after all, to have a notion 
that he is no "child in intellect," for he hints that whatever may be 
said of his grammar, his "arguments," if they can only be "under- 
stood," are of great consequence. Well, if we can understand them, 
we shall see. 

It seems to be a favourite object with our author, to create an impres- 
sion, that the system he opposes is new, and his own old. And we are 
free to admit that if his repeated assertions, and his regular rounds of 
changes on the words new, innovation, SfC, on almost every page of 
his book, were proof, he has indeed made out a pretty strong case, j 
He has discernment enough to understand that a professed attachment 

* Notwithstanding this confession of ignorance even of the English language, we find our au- 
thor, on page 35, referring to the original Greek of the New Testament, and modestly giving ub 
an improved translation. He is honest about it, however. He says " it does not become" him. 

t It will be admitted, we suppose, without any peculiar stretch of charity, that the author of 
"The Deacon," unlike our author, has some knowledge of " composition," and of "correct gram- 
matical construction," and of course some little acquaintance with the meaning of the language he 



( 5 ) 



to the attainments of the church " is necessary in order to gain credence 
among Covenanters." Hence he attempts the double deception, first, 
of representing the author of the Deacon as having departed from the 
"footsteps of the flock;" and second, that he himself is walking therein. 
But notwithstanding his boasted professions of respect for his "cove- 
nanted forefathers" and "the footsteps of the flock," a very superficial 
examination of his work will make it evident that his respect goes no 
farther than profession. On page 18, speaking of the doctrines respect- 
ing the Deacon's office, which had been referred to by the author of 
"The Deacon" as held by our reforming ancestors, and for which they 
contended so long and suffered so much," he says, 

"These opinions being given in answer to a very different question, 
their authors might have given very different opinions upon the point 
now before us." 

/ Now we freely admit that the doctrines held by our "covenanted 
forefathers" are binding on us only so far as they are imbodied in the 
laws and covenants of the church. But we cannot admit for a moment 
that they were men of so little honesty as to change their opinions on 
one question, simply on the presentation of another. The "point now 
before us," namely, the extent of the deacon's power, is the very point 
on which they have given their opinions in the passages referred to as 
quoted by "The Deacon." And when they say that his power ex- 
tended to "the collection and distribution of the whole ecclesiastical 
goods, and not to that only which was collected in manner of alms,"* 
and other expressions of like import, the " man" must have a "great 
respect" indeed for their character when he says they would have ex- 
pressed a "very different opinion," had some other question been pre- 
sented to them. Doubtless their opinion on any subject, would be an 
opinion having a relation to that particular subject, and of course on a 
subject having no relation to the deacon's power, would be different 
from their opinion respecting his power. On the question of purgatory 
or of the resurrection of the dead, for example, their opinions would 
have relation to those subjects and not to the Deacon's power. We 
presume nobody even doubted this. Our author's meaning then, if he 
meant any thing, must be that had some other question been presented 
to them, they would have expressed an opinion respecting the deacon's 
power, contrary to that which they have expressed. Now we do not 
pretend to know what the "question" was, in answer to which they 
gave the opinion that the Deacon's power extends to " the collection 
and distribution of the whole ecclesiastical goods, and not to that only 
which was collected in manner of alms," or whether this opinion was 
given in answer to any "question." Nor can we know to what ques- 
tion our friend imagines they would have answered that the Deacon's 
power does not extend to "the collection and distribution of the whole 

uses. It will be evident to any one who will examine the work, although his knowledge of 
4< grammatical construction" should be very limited, that it was not intended merely or chiefly for 
Covenanters, but for the Christian church at large. We presume the author never dreamed of the 
degree of ignorance and obstinacy which has subsequently been developed among Covenanters 
respecting the office of Deacon. Hence, while he requests the reader " not to reject at once pro- 
positions that may be new to him," he proposes nothing that is nzw to intelligent Covenanters, 
however new some of his propositions were known to be to others. He merely seeks to point out 
the "good old way" in which our venerated fathers walked, but from which so many of their de- 
generate sons have turned aside. The play, then, of this "man" (as he styles himself) on the 
words "wetc." "pioneer? &c, is perfectly childish. If he is indeed a "man," he ought to "put 
away such childish things." 

* Second Book of discipline, Chap. IX. 



( 6 ) 



ecclesiastical goods, &c.;" but we are inclined to think, although we 
feel a delicacy about expressing it, that the man who will thus impeach 
the honesty and integrity of our "covenanted forefathers," at the same 
time professing an extraordinary degree of respect for them, must be 
endowed with no small degree of- arrogance, and a strong faith in the 
gullibility of his readers. 

As a farther evidence that his respect for our "covenanted forefathers' 5 
is only pretence, we find him on page thirty-eight, endeavouring accord- 
ing to his abilit} 7 , to turn to ridicule the "'Second Book of Discipline." 
Speaking of it, he sneeringly observes, " to which some individuals have 
conceived an extraordinary attachment of late," — and goes on to dis- 
course of the " building of bridges, &c." And on page forty-one, speak- 
ing of the Westminster Divines and the church of Scotland, he says, 
" they, seeing that the officers of the church had been formerly lording 
it over the people in this matter, &c." Here we have evidence not onl}' 
of his want of respect for our "covenanted forefathers," but a base and 
slanderous charge, unsupported even by an attempt at proof, and wholly 
incapable of proof, preferred against them. 

As a sort of offset to this disrespect of our author, to the fathers of 
the church and the " footsteps of the flock," he pretends to have a very 
high regard for the inspired writers. These he facetiously introduces as 
the "grandfathers," and takes occasion at the same time to make 
quite a brilliant exhibition of his wit in relating an anecdote of a godly 
old lady and a popish priest. But even for these "grandfathers" 
who " were moved by the Holy G-host," our author does not entertain 
much more respect than he does for the "fathers:" for he tells us on 
page eighteen, that "the apostles themselves sometimes misapprehended 
the words of their divine Master." Now it savours not merely of dis- 
respect but of infidelity, if not of blasphemy, to say that the apostles, 
while under the infallible guidance of the Spirit of inspiration, could 
have misrepresented or misapprehended the words of Christ. We need 
not then be surprised that the " man " who can speak thus of the inspired 
writers, should show little respect to our "covenanted forefathers," and 
even reproach and revile them. But it is matter of surprise that such a 
man should pretend to have a respect for them, and have the effrontery 
to vilify those who are walking in their footsteps, as if they had depart- 
ed from them. This is shameful juggling. 

On page six, our author asks " why has this question been agitated at 
all? Is it," he continues " because the first movers are wiser or more 
faithful than our covenanted forefathers?" Now as the first " agitation " 
of this subject with which we are acquainted, resulted in the choice of 
seven deacons, in obedience to the command of men who " spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost," it may be admitted, without any dis- 
paragement, of the wisdom and faithfulness of our covenanted forefathers, 
that the "first movers" were wiser and more faithful than they. Yet 
we do not say that this is the formal reason why the subject is agitated 
now. We rather think that one chief reason is that some of the sons of 
a covenanted ancestry pretend to a wisdom far superior to that of our 
fathers, and seem to " be wise " even " above what is written." And on 
the other hand there are many who think the "first movers" and our 
"covenanted forefathers" were wiser and more faithful than these their 
degenerate sons — many who regard the covenanted attainments of the 
church of God as too sacred to be set aside by the furious, fretful, and 



( 7 ) 



frothy effusions of the Gaileys, the Steeles, the "poor wise men," the 
M'Kees, the Nightingales — et id omne genus — of the present day. 
Hence the present agitation. But those who sneer at " The Second book 
of Discipline," and the footsteps of the flock, whether they be "chil- 
dren " or giants in intellect, will find little favour among honest and 
godly Covenanters. Their pretended respect for their " covenanted 
forefathers/ ' while they set at naught their blood-bought attainments, 
will pass for no more than it is worth. Their cry of" agitators " and 
"innovators" will return upon their own heads. 

Another favourite object with our author, seems to be, to represent 
those from whom he differs as ambitious and tyrannical, and himself and 
his trustee brethren as great sticklers for the rights of the people. For 
example, on page forty-two, he speaks of the "claims previously put 
forth" by the author of "the Deacon," as " sufficiently grasping to 
suit the most ambitious aspirant after power" and goes on to ani- 
madvert on claims still more extravagant. On page forty-one, he speaks 
of the " officers of the church," in the times of our covenanted forefathers, 
"'lording it over the people" in the matter of managing the temporali- 
ties. And on page eighteen he gives some broad hints about the "first 
workings of that tyrannical system " (the papacy we suppose,) being "a 
grasping for power over temporal things" — and wonders!! (innocent 
44 man ") " that The Deacon has been able to produce so little from this 
source," in favour of his system. Abuse of this description is altogether 
unworthy of notice. We merely refer to it as an example of the kind 
and Christian spirit of the writer, and of the " high esteem and affection- 
ate regard " he entertains for his " covenanted forefathers." His zeal for 
the rights of the people is also held up very prominently before his 
readers. He insists frequently upon the position that " whatever is not 
official business cannot be usurped by the officers without unjustly in- 
fringing upon the rights of the people," and he seems to attach conside- 
rable importance to the position he assumes in the very first sentence of 
his book, namely, that the management of congregational temporalities 
is not official business, and that trustees are not officers at all. Odd as 
this notion is, it is not original with our author. At the last meeting of 
the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian church, a document, written 
by a learned and distinguished advocate of the trustee system, came un- 
der the notice of synod, in which the same position was assumed, and 
the idea that trustees are officers, scouted at as ridiculous and absurd. 
And yet in this very same document, the learned writer discourses 
gravely respecting certain powers pertaining to trustees and "their suc- 
cessors in office" which he regards as inviolable, or something of that 
kind. This shows that the assumption is a mere evasion — a contrivance 
to help its inventors out of a difficulty. But what a pitiful evasion ! ! 

The word "office" according to the best lexicographers, signifies a 
public charge or employment. The business of an office then, or official 
business, is that which relates to a public charge as opposed to that which 
is merely private or personal. But the temporal concerns of a congre- 
gation being a public charge, their management is of course official busi- 
ness. Jf it is not, it must be merely personal and private. If, then, the 
assumption of our author and his learned friend be correct, the temporal 
concerns of a congregation have nothing of a public nature in them — they 
are mere private personal affairs — the personal affairs, most likely, of the 
trustees. Well, this is a phase of trusteeism of a " grasping" tendency 

t 



( 8 ) 



indeed, and yet not far from the truth. Indeed we know some congre- 
gations of covenanters where trusteeism is in the ascendency, in which 
this definition of the system is carried out almost to the letter. We 
know one in particular, (and it is a pretty fair specimen of most of them,) 
where such a thing as a congregational meeting is hardly ever heard of 
— where for several years— six or eight perhaps — no such meeting has 
been hehl, except a special one called by the pastor in order to have his 
salary increased, and perhaps another also special for the election of elders. 
And if things go on in their usual channel there, the present generation 
may pass away without an opportunity of witnessing another congrega- 
tional meeting, unless the session should want an addition to its members, 
or the pastor a farther increase of his salar} 7 . The idea of calling the • 
people together at regular intervals to lay before them a statement of 
their fiscal concerns would be regarded in that latitude as perfectly pre- 
posterous. The members of the congregation generally know nothing 
of its financial condition.* Now this sort of management can only be 
accounted for on the principle of this "committee man " and his distin- 
guished friend, — namely, that the management of congregational busi- 
ness is not regarded as official business at all, and the people, of course, 
have no right to intermeddle with the private business of the trustees, f 
This is an admirable commentary on the profession of these men who 
are so clamorous for the. "rights of the people." Like our swaggering 
politicians, they are boisterous for the rights of the people — they would 
almost die for the rights of the dear people. • Oh ! ! how "jealous " even 
"to a nicety" of the rights of the people. And what holy horror they 
have of priestly tyranny, and the " grasping claims of ambitious aspirants 
after power," and of " the officers of the church lording it over the peo- 
ple." And with what facility they catch the infidel slang of the age re- 
specting priestcraft, priestly ambition, &c. Oh! dear! but they are the 
true friends of the people. And yet where their system gets full swing, 
they take good care to let the dear people know precious little of their 
doings. 

Our author proposes to discuss his subject without any reference to 
"abuses." On page seventeen, he says, " no part of our argument will 
be drawn from abuses that might be found in consistories or boards of 
deacons." This is remarkably kind. He is so peculiarly tender he 
does not w r ish to expose the frailties of his brethren. But his " goodness 
is like the morning cloud and early dew," for in writing the next sen- 
tence he seems to have forgotten it all, and proclaims the abundance of 
his materials for that kind of argument, and goes on to tell of a " con- 
sistory in the Reformed Presbyterian church that took away the proper- 
ty of the congregation, in spite of a large majority of its members, and 
sold it for a temple of popish " idolatry." True, he says " he does not 
use this as an argument at all." As what, then, does he use it? And 
why so trumpet-tongued about the "abundance" of such materials? 
Why these attempts to throw odium on his brethren when he admits 

* One of the officers, on being asked why they never held congregational meetings, replied that 
it would never do to hold congregational meetings there; for said he, somebody would get up and 
oppose us, and it would make so much disturbance we could get nothing done. 

t Since the above was written, we learn with pleasure that several meetings of this congregation 
have been held. This, however, is easily accounted for when it is known that the principles of 
trusteeism, so long in the ascendency there, are now rather on the decline; and the friends of dea- 
cons have multiplied to such extent that their influence begins to be felt. Hence these congrega- 
tional meetings. This is exactly what may be expected. Wherever Christ's institutions are duly 
esteemed, there will the rights of the people be respected. 



( 9 ) 

that he can draw no argument from them ? All pure affection, we sup- 
pose! ! How the " milk of human kindness " gushes through his veins!! 
But when he referred to these " materials " at all, would it not have been 
quite as manly to have given them in detail, or at least a few examples, 
that the reader might judge of their atrocity for himself? We are in- 
clined, however, to the opinion that these "materials" are not quite so 
abundant as he would have us believe, — because, in the first place, he 
has given sufficient evidence of his " love to the brethren V to satisfy the 
most skeptical, that he would not "suffer " such sins upon them without 
a public rebuke, if they had been really guilty. And, secondly, — because 
the example he has given is in every particular untrue. We defy him 
to " point to a consistory in the Reformed Presbyterian church," either 
the "first formed" or any other, "that took away the property of the 
congregation in spite of a large majority of its members, and sold it for 
a temple of popish idolatry." The whole statement is a calumnious fa- 
brication. And it is pretty strong evidence of a remarkable scarcity 
of materials of this kind when the only example adduced is a sheer fa- 
brication. Why risk his veracity in stating that which is false for an 
example, if he had any thing true to state? 

We are well aware, that such unfounded charges against the friends of 
deacons, are quite abundant in certain quarters. Charges and stories of 
this kind have been abundant for years, and some of them after a jour- 
ney of three or four hundred miles, have grown to enormous dimensions. 
This has hitherto been the regular mode of warfare of the trustee bre- 
thren: and by the aid of letter writers, and travelling agents, both male 
and female, it has been reduced to a system. Out of the abundance* of 
these arguments we take the liberty to relate one as a sample, for the 
entertainment of our readers. Several years ago, it was reported within 
the bounds of the Pittsburgh Presbytery, that, a poor woman, a member 
of the church in Philadelphia, had been discovered by some of the 
trustee brethren in great distress; — having neither "food to eat," nor 
"raiment to put on;" — that application was made immediately to the 
deacons, but they refused to administer to her relief. The application 
was repeated again and again without success. Finally, these trustee 
brethren had to furnish the necessary relief out of their own pockets. 
In a short time, owing to the neglect of the deacons, the woman died. 
Application was then made to the deacons to bury her, but they refused, 
and these same benevolent trustee friends were obliged to nail up the 
corpse in some sort of rough box, and thus bury her at their own ex- 
pense. This infamous fabrication was related in the presence of an 
aged minister of the Reformed Presbyterian church, who remarked that 
he had many letters from Philadelphia containing statements of other 
cases quite as bad, if not worse. It was with no small degree of sur- 
prise, we found it next to impossible to convince either the person who 
related the story or the minister who heard it, that it was not true. 
This shows how skilfully this mode of warfare had been carried on. 
• and to how great a degree of perfection the system had arrived. We 
doubt not our author has abundance of materials of this description. 
However dangerous to society are the inventors of such gross and mali- 
cious falsehoods, since they appear to be " taken captive by Satan at his 
will," they should be the objects of our commiseration. "Father, for- 
give them." 

The views of our author respecting the nature of a divine right, ap- 



( io ) 



pear to us extravagant in the extreme. On pages 3 and 4, speaking of 
those congregations in the United States that have managed their tem- 
poralities for many years by their officers, he says " it was not claimed 
by them as of divine right, but only preferred to other modes." In 
proof of tins, he quotes a passage from the act of incorporation of the 
Reformed Presbyterian church in the state of New York (which act 
he falselv asserts was obtained by Dr. M'Leod,) which provides that the 
officers "shall not at any time determine or alter the minister's salary 
or the annual rent of the pews, but that the same shall be always sub- 
ject to the annual vote of the congregation." This is his proof. 

He then] assures us, " That it is perfectly plain from the above, that the distinguished divine above 
alluded to, did not believe that all the temporalities of the church are by divine right to be managed 
and controlled by the officers; for the right is here reserved to the people to dictate to them both 
in the amount of the collections and expenditures. And indeed the idea that by divine authority 
the Deacons are to manage all the temporalities of the church, and to make them dependent upon 
the congregation both as to what money they shall collect, and what they shall do with it, is an 
absurdity too glaring to be entertained by any man of common sense who knows any thing of 
church order." 

Now the opinion of Dr. M ; Leod in this matter is of very little con- 
sequence; and at any rate, as he did not obtain the act of incorporation 
referred to, no information respecting his opinion can be gathered from 
it. But to say nothing of the senseless use of the term " dictate," as 
applied to the people in making their contributions for the support of 
the gospel, we cannot, with all due respect for our author's logical skill, 
admit his conclusion. We can see no absurdity at all in the idea that 
by Divine authority, the officers are to manage the temporalities of the 
church, and at the same time be dependent on the contributions of 
the people for the amount to be so managed. We are not of those who 
suppose, like our author, that the right to manage the contributions of 
the people is a right to dictate to the people the amount of their con- 
tributions. Nay, we see, if not the most " glaring absurdity," the most 
unblushing tyranny in the idea that they who by divine right manage 
the temporalities may in consequence of that right " dictate" to the 
people how much they must give, and then apply the amount so ex- 
torted to any purpose they please. What! A divine right to manage 
the temporalities of a congregation is a right to take from the people 
at pleasure, and a right to spend the amount so taken at pleasure! This 
is monstrous. And yet our worthy author sets down all who do not 
believe this as a set of asses destitute of "common sense." 

Nor is there any absurdity at all in the idea, that by divine right the 
deacons are to manage the temporalities, and at the same time be strictly 
bound to pay the minister's salary as fixed by the vote of the congrega- 
tion. We find both these ideas clearly asserted in a compend of ec- 
clesiastical government and order published by Synod in 1836. There 
it is declared, Chap. II. Sec. 2, that " the office of the deacon is to attend 
to the temporal concerns of the congregation." And in sec. 4, that 
"to the session, with the deacons associated, belongs the management 
of the temporalities of the congregation." And in the same chapter, 
sec. 3, it is also declared, that " to the members of a congregation belong 
the privileges of fixing the salary offered with a call, and of in- 
creasing the salary of their pastor." From this it appears that the 
Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church entertains the idea that 
the ecclesiastical officers have the right to manage the temporalities of 
the congregation, and at the same time the members of the congrega- 



( 11 ) 



lion have the right, to fix the amount their officers are to pay to the 
pastor. Synod was not so lynx-eyed as to see any inconsistency be- 
tween these two ideas or any glaring absurdity in either of them. 
Whether Mr. Nightingale regards the members of this Synod as men 
of common sense who know any thing of church order, we cannot say, 
but it is certain they entertain the idea which he has pronounced "an 
absurdity too glaring to he entertained by men" of that character. 

Having been edified by this exhibition of our author's views respect- 
ing the nature of a divine right, it may be well enough to make an ap- 
plication of his principles to the trustee system, that we may the better 
understand what sort of system it is. On pages 10, 11, and 12, he la- 
bours to prove the divine right of trustees chiefly from 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4.* 
According to his definition of a divine right then these trustees cannot 
be dependent on the congregation for the money they collect, nor ac- 
countable to the congregation for the manner in which they dispose of 
it. Either of these would be a glaring absurdity. Take his whole 
sentence when speaking of a divine right as applied to deacons, and 
substitute the word trustees, for whose divine right to manage the 
temporalities he strenuously contends, and we have the genuine trustee 
system in all its beauty exhibited to view. 

"The idea, that by divine authority the 'trustees' 1 are to manage all the temporalities of the 
church, and yet to make them dependent upon the dictation of the congregation both as to what 
they shall collect and what they shall do with it is an absurdity too glaring to be entertained by 
any man of common sense who knows any thing of church order." 

Here we have trustees with divine authority to manage all the tem- 
poralities of the church, including at least those "designed" partly if 
not " solely for the poor," not at all dependent on the will of the peo- 
ple for the amount of funds they wish to have at their disposal — not 
accountable to any body for the use they make of them. They 
can take as much as they please from the people without their consent, 
for it is a "glaring absurdity" to make them dependent on the people 
for the amount they collect; and they can do what they please with it, 
for it is a glaring absurdity to require them to pay the minister's salary 
as fixed by the vote of the congregation!!! From all such trustees de- 
liver us. They were bad enough in all conscience when they claimed 
only human authority, but with a divine right such as John claims for 
them, we would be afraid of our pockets. And as the title "committee 
man" which John assumes may be understood to mean a trustee, it is 
possible he may have a personal interest in the matter. We would 
therefore most respectfully ask him to keep his distance from us. This 
we are aware is rather a delicate point, but you must bear with us, John; 
for really your divine authority, if it is what you say, is rather a danger- 
ous commodity. 

There are a considerable number of assertions scattered through this 
work, which, were we disposed to be harsh, we might justly designate 
falsehoods, and shake in the author's face, the penalty denounced against 
the breakers of the ninth commandment, Rev. xxi, 9. But we are dis- 
posed to be charitable, and notice a few of them under the head of 

" SLIGHT MISTAKES," OR BLUNDERS. 

I. The first of these we find at the outset, namely, that " it is a new 
principle, that the management of congregational temporalities is official 

* The trustees for which he finds a divine right in this passage, had charge, it appears, of funds 
designed for the poor as well as for other purposes. If his reasoning be sound then, it would prove 
that trustees and not deacons should have charge of funds designed for the poor. 



( 12 ) 



business belonging to the officers" of the church, and this assertion is 
repeated in various forms on almost every page of the production. 

To prove that this assertion is destitute of truth, it is only necessary 
to refer to the quotations from Origen, Beza, Henry, Scott, and Guyse ? 
on pages 26 and 27 of " The Deacon," and to those from Rutherford, 
Dickson, Owen, the London divines, Brown, Ridgley, Gill, and Miller,, 
on pages 35 and 36 of the same work. It is not necessary to copy these 
extracts as they are accessible to all. They declare as with one voice 
that the management of the temporalities of the church is the business 
of church officers, and of course demonstrate the falsehood of our 
Oman's" assertion that the "principle is new." He has evidently 
made large calculations on the ignorance of his readers, not only in re- 
lation to " grammatical construction," but historical facts. But notwith- 
standing this assertion, he almost admits on page 18, that these "great 
and good men" did entertain the opinion they have expressed. (Very 
remarkable truly ! !) But he says " this being only human testimony the 
question remains to be argued as much as before." Very true. Their 
expression of this opinion does not prove it to be true. But it proves 
his assertion, that it is a "new principle/' to be false. 

But it seems to be with special reference to Covenanters that this as- 
sertion is made; for he immediately adds, " We say this claim for official 
power is new among Covenanters." We fear, however, that the as- 
sertion will be found as wide of the mark in regard to Covenanters as 
others. For in addition to the writers referred to above, of whom Ru- 
therford, Dickson and the London Divines were Covenanters, we would 
refer him to the opinion of Rev. John Fairley, that "the office" of dea- 
cons " relates to the necessities of the poor, and the external concerns 
of the church."* This esteemed divine seems to have been acquainted 
with the principle that the care of the external concerns of the church 
is the business of church officers. This "claim for official power" does 
not appear to have been "new " to him. He speaks of it as a settled 
matter. " Their office relates" &c. Nothing remarkable about the ex- 
pression. It is merely stated as a thing acknowledged by every body. 
But while the opinions of Rutherford, Dickson, the London divines and 
Fairley are more than sufficient to show that this claim is not new 
among Covenanters, we have still stronger evidence on this point than 
that of any individuals however respectable. We have the express de- 
claration of the Reformed Presbyterian Church both in Scotland and 
Ireland. In their Testimony, Chap. XI. Sec. 11, they assert that " Dea- 
cons are ordained upon the choice of the congregation, and are associa- 
ted with the teaching and ruling elders in distributing to the necessities 
of the poor, and managing other temporaries in the church." 
Here we find, not a few individuals, but the whole Covenanted Church 
claiming for the ecclesiastical officers, the power to manage the other 
temporalities as well as to take care of the poor. There must surely be 
some mistake about our author's statement. But if our friend will refer 
to the second Book of Discipline,— that standing monument of the wis- 
dom and faithfulness of our "covenanted forefathers," for which we con- 
fess we " have conceived," if not "an extraordinary" at least a very 
strong "attachment," he will find it stated in Chap. ix. that "these col- 
lections are not only of that which is collected in manner of alms, as 
some suppose, but of other goods moveable and immoveable, &c." 



* Quotation from Stevenson. 



{ 13 ) 



This "claim for official power/' then, was asserted by those illustrious 
Covenanters who framed and adopted this venerable document, and by 
all who have professed their adherence thereto down to the present time. 
To show that the Reformed Presbyterian church still adheres to this 
part of her covenanted attainments, if indeed the fact, that it was so- 
lemnly ratified and still remains unrepealed on her statute book were 
not sufficient, we quote the following passage from her Testimony. 

"Again, the Presbytery hereby testify and declare their approbation of and adherence unto all 
the different steps of reformation, that ever in any period were attained unto in this church and 
land; particularly, besides what has been mentioned above, they declare their adherence to the 
Westminster Confession of Faith, as it was approved by act of the General A ssembly of the Church 
of Scotland, Anno 1647; Catechisms larger and shorter; forms of church government, directory of 
worship, and books of discipline, as agreeable to and extracted from the sacred oracles."* 

This is surely sufficient to show that our friend is egregiously mis- 
taken when he asserts that "this claim is new among covenanters;" and 
that "the church in Scotland and Ireland never assumed this power/' 
But aside from this, it is somewhat singular that Mr. Nightingale, who 
we are credibly informed w T as a member of the Reformed Presbyterian 
church in Ireland, and of course solemnly bound to the testimony of 
which the above extract is a very important item, can write as he does 
respecting the second book of discipline, and the power of church offi- 
cers as set forth therein. And what is more curious still — that in the 
face of all this he should pretend to be a great stickler for the doctrines 
and practices of "our covenanted forefathers." Had he not been a 
member of the church in Ireland, his conduct, although not so barefaced, 
would be no less reprehensible; for the church in the United States dis- 
tinctly and explicitly "approves of the Testimony of the Reformed Co- 
venanted church in Britain and Ireland."-)- It would thus seem as if 
the fathers of the church had taken special pains to guard this matter on 
every point, that in all future times those who should depart from this 
important part of our covenanted attainments, should be " known and 
read of all men," as " covenant-breakers." 

But if we go back to the days of Nehemiah, even there we find evi- 
dence of our author's mistake. This ancient Covenanter says in re- 
ference to the treasurers of the House of God, "Their office was to 
distribute to their brethren." He seems to have thought that the dis- 
tribution of the treasuries of the church was official business. "Their 
office was to distribute, &c." Will John call this claim for official 
power " new . ? " 

But why argue this point, for our author, in the teeth of all his as- 
sertions to the contrary, has admitted that the principle he opposes is 
"old." While he makes this admission, however, he says it has been 
"exploded." "The old exploded principle." Indeed! When, where, 
and by whom was it exploded? Do tell us, John ? The history of this 
explosion would certainly be interesting and instructive. And there 
are some folks so unreasonable as to look for proof when assertions of 
this kind are made, and who in the absence of proof, may be naughty 
enough to say that you have drawn upon your imagination for your 
fact. 

II. On page 22 the following very remarkable passage occurs: 

" A very great majority of those whose claims for very high esteem and affectionate regard are 
felt and acknowledged by every true presbyterian, and whose memory is especially embalmed in 
the hearts of Covenanters, have not held "the Deacon's" views. Among these are to be found 

* Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian church, page 174, Belfast edition, 1832. 
6 See 6th question of formula put to church officers at their ordination. 



( 14 ) 



the Westminster divines, the ministers of the church of Scotland, and all orthodox Presbyterian 
Dissenters in Scotland and Ireland for the last 200 years; and though last not least, our covenant- 
ed forefathers, and all Covenanters down to the present time— who with a very few modern 
exceptions, have all taught and practised upon the principle, that the deacon's power does not ex- 
tend to all the temporalities of the church." 

At the head of this passage stands this judicious and exceedingly ap- 
propriate preface, namely, "It is one of the easiest things in the world 
to make assertions; the difficulty is all in proving themP Certainly 
a more appropriate introduction to the passage above quoted could not 
be conceived. The assertions here are round and clear, and compre- 
hensive. They are doubtless made with great ease — and by an experi- 
enced hand at such business. But where is the proof? Where did our 
friend obtain all this " interesting information ?" How did he ascertain 
that all this vast multitude held views different from "the Deacon" on 
the extent of the deacon's power] Who told him that the "Westmin- 
ster divines, all taught and practised upon the principle that the dea- 
con's power does not extend to all the temporalities of the church?" 
Who told him that "the ministers of the church of Scotland for the last 
200 years all taught and practised upon this principle?" How on earth 
did he find out, that " all orthodox presbyterian dissenters in Scotland 
and Ireland for the last 200 years, all taught and practised upon" this 
principle so dear to our author ? And where does he find that "our 
covenanted forefathers" too, all so taught and practised? In what his- 
tory or document are all these highly interesting facts recorded ? We did 
certainly expect one quotation or two from some source, to back up these 
most comprehensive assertions, but we have been disappointed. Not a 
syllable of proof nor a reference to any sort of authority. We fear there- 
was indeed some "difficulty " here. But notwithstanding this, we hope 
John will try to tell us where he got all this historical information. 
And the more especially are we anxious to get a sight of John's history, 
since every one of the vast multitude referred to, who has expressed an 
opinion on the subject, agrees with "the Deacon" in every essential 
particular. Of the thousands of ministers of the church of Scotland, and 
the hundreds of thousands — the millions of orthodox presbyterian dis- 
senters who have lived and died in Scotland and Ireland during the last 
200 years— a very small proportion indeed — hardly a dozen perhaps 
— have left any record of what particular views they held as to the ex- 
tent of the deacon's power. And the quotations given by the author 
of "the Deacon," show that these few held and advocated "the Deacon's" 
views on this point as far as their writings relate thereto. Our author 
endeavours to account for this remarkable coincidence of opinion be- 
tween these respected fathers and his friend, the author of "the Dea- 
con," by saying, that "these opinions being given in answer to a differ- 
ent question, their authors might have given very different opinions 
upon the point now before us," that he will not "appeal to the opinions 
of men on this question because it has never been discussed to any ex- 
tent in its present aspect" — that when our covenanted forefathers "con- 
tended so long and suffered so much" for the right of the Deacon to 
"collect and distribute the whole ecclesiastical goods," and not merely 
"that w T hich was collected in manner of alms," they did it merely be- 
cause they would not "submit to the usurped authority of Erastian civil 
rulers in this matter."* All this is truly edifying, and from it we 
learn. 



* Pages 17 and 18. 



( 15 ) 



First, That nobody in the world ever expressed an opinion on the 
point in dispute between our author and his friend, " The Deacon," 
for "this question has never been discussed to any extent in its present 
aspect." 

Second, That some " great and good men" have expressed opinions 
on this subject, contrary to the opinions of our author, but these opinions 
having been expressed in discussions in which the claims of Erastian 
civil rulers to manage the temporalities of the church are shown to be 
unfounded, he thinks it unfair to use them in favour of the rights of 
church officers to the management of this business. These opinions are 
entirely worthless, for had they known what " ambitious aspirants after 
power" are our modern Deacon men, " they might have given very 
different opinions." And, 

Third, We learn that all the Westminster divines, all the minis- 
ters of the church of Scotland, and all orthodox Presbyterian Dis- 
senters in Scotland and Ireland, for the last 200 years — all our cove- 
nanted forefathers, and all covenanters and almost all Christendom 
besides — have all expressed opinions coinciding exactly with those of 
our author upon the point now before us" — for they "have all taught 
and practised upon the principle that the deacon's power does not ex- 
tend to all the temporalities of the church." These are three lessons 
of great importance which our author has taught us. Let us recapitu- 
late that we may not forget them. 1. Nobody ever expressed an opi- 
nion respecting the extent of the deacon's power. 2. Many great and 
good men have expressed the opinion that his power extends to all the 
temporalities of the church. 3. Almost every body great and small 
who has borne the Presbyterian name for 200 years past has expressed 
the opinion that the deacon's power does not extend to all the tempo- 
ralities of the church. Who can doubt our author's fitness to discuss 
this question? 

It is scarcely necessary here to remark, that the vast majority of those 
here claimed as holding our author's views, have left no record of their 
individual opinions on this subject, or indeed on any subject; — and 
hence his claim that they were all on his side is too ridiculous to de- 
serve any serious notice. 

It is freely admitted, however, that the practice of some of them has 
not come fully up to their profession, inasmuch as the office of the dea- 
con has been extensively neglected; yet the principle, that the manage- 
ment of the temporalities of the church belongs to the officers, has been 
very generally acted upon by the vast multitude referred to. In the 
Church of Scotland they never had a trustee. The pastor and ruling 
elders manage the temporalities. So also to a considerable extent among 
the Presbyterians in Ireland. This has been the general practice, and 
the instances where trustees are found, are only the exceptions. But it 
is a bad mode of argument to take the practice of a small portion of any 
denomination of people as an index of the doctrines held and taught by 
the body. One grand design of ecclesiastical law, is to correct loose 
practices, but loose practices can never determine the law. About the 
time our New Light brethren left the church, it was no uncommon 
thing to hear them argue that, as individuals in the church had been in 
the habit of voting and sitting on juries for many years, therefore the 
doctrines and laws of the church could not be opposed to such practices. 
But every one knows that the toleration of these immoral practices arose 
from a laxity of discipline, and not from any thing favourable thereto in 



( 16 ) 



the standards of the church. It might with equal plausibility be argued 
that the church has not condemned and prohibiled " the soul-destroying 
traffic in intoxicating drinks," because some of her members have been 
engaged in this traffic ever since it was prohibited, and still obstinately 
and unblushingly persist in it in open defiance of the authority of the 
church. The fact then, that some congregations in the churches referred 
to may have had trustees, is no argument that any of them ever held 
or taught the doctrine that the management of the temporalities does 
not belong to the officers, especially while their acknowledged standards 
teach the contrary. The great body of those referred to, especially the 
Church of Scotland, are explicitly bound to the second Book of Disci- 
pline, which is very decided on this point. 

III. Another mistake, or rather misrepresentation, of our author is, 
that the author of "The Deacon " holds that the radical principle of the 
trustee system is, that trustees are not officers, pages 10 and 12. 

Now we beg leave to say that the author of the Deacon has nowhere 
maintained any such thing. He has indeed said very truly, that "the 
radical principle of the trustee system is that trustees are not church of- 
ficers, but he has nowhere put forth the ridiculous idea that they are not 
officers at all." This idea is the creation of John's own fancy ; and the 
idea that the author of the Deacon had expressed such an absurdity, is 
" traceable only to the same source." He then charges the author of 
the Deacon with arguing against trustees as officers, when the radical 
principle of the system is that they are not, and informs his readers with 
profound gravity that "there is no such thing in the church as unor- 
dained officers." That those who attend to the business of a public 
charge are not officers, and their business in attending thereto, not offi- 
cial business, is a sage discovery for which we are wholly indebted to 
the champions of modern trusteeism. While no man ever believed that 
trustees are ecclesiastical officers, certainly no one ever before supposed 
that they are not officers at all. There is a difference, John, between 
being merely an officer, and being an ecclesiastical officer; and so long 
as there are trustees in the church, there is (to use your own grammati- 
cal construction,) "such thing as unordained officers" in it, your as- 
sertion to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The use which our friend makes of this misrepresentation requires 
some farther notice. The author of the Deacon, in noticing the attempt 
sometimes made to establish the office of trustee from 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4, 
had said that the " mere carrying of funds does not constitute an office." 
Our author jumps at this expression with great avidity, as if he had found 
something exactly to suit him. He "perfectly agrees with him that it 
is absurd to say that the mere carrying of funds, constitutes an office;" 
and goes on, with a slight inclination to be witty in his way, to remind 
the author of 'the Deacon/ of his admission that "trustees are no church 
officers." His argument, although not very clearly stated, seems to be 
this, that as the carrying of funds does not constitute an office, and as 
trustees are not church officers, therefore the persons whom Paul sent 
to carry the liberality of the Corinthians to Jerusalem were trustees. 
If this is not his idea, we confess we do not understand him. This ar- 
gument, or rather we should say this sophism, for the conclusion would 
not follow were both the propositions true, is founded on the assump- 
tion that trustees are not officers — a position that neither "the Deacon," 
nor any other sensible man ever admitted. He uniformly misrepre- 



( n ) 



sents "the Deacon," on this point. The Deacon having said that trus- 
tees are not church officers, our author constantly assumes that he has 
admitted that they are not officers at all. Keeping this in view, the sil- 
liness of his retort upon " the Deacon," is abundantly evident. But in- 
dependent of this, since the mere carrying of funds from one city to 
another is not the business for which trustees are appointed, it does not 
follow that the persons who may be employed to carry them are trus- 
tees — If so, the carriers of the United States mail are congregational 
trustee?, for they frequently carry church funds from one city and place 
to another. Our author, then, only manifests his stupidity, or else his 
propensity to misrepresent, and leaves the objection of the Deacon ex- 
actly as he found it — if not unanswerable — unanswered. 

IV. A fourth misrepresentation or mistake which deserves notice is 
immediately connected with the preceding. The author of " the Dea- 
con," in exposing this perversion of the texts alluded to, had said that if 
they " prove any thing on the subject at all, they prove too much even 
for the advocates of the trustee system; namely, that the people have a 
right to appoint trustees for the poor's fund, and thus banish Deacons 
altogether." Now, says our author, "to ward off this fatal objection, it 
is only necessary to place it in juxtaposition with 'the Deacon's' state- 
ment, that these "funds were not designed solely to feed the poor" 
Now if our man can place nothing else in "juxtaposition," with this ob- 
jection with which to " ward it off," we fear its effects will still prove fatal 
to his favourite system. If these funds were not designed solely for the 
poor, they must have been partly so designed. It would be absurd to 
talk of funds not designed solely for a certain purpose, if no part of 
them was designed for that purpose. A part of these funds then being 
designed for the poor the objection of " the Deacon " remains untouched. 
The principle involved is the same, whether they carried a large or a 
small amount. If they carried funds for other purposes also, that has 
nothing to do with the objection. The misrepresentation consists in 
assuming, that "the Deacon " had granted that no part of these funds 
were for the poor. If then the carrying of funds designed for ecclesias- 
tical purposes from one place to another, authorizes the appointment of 
trustees for the management of congregational funds — the carrying of 
funds designed for the poor, authorizes the appointment of trustees for 
the management of the poor's fund. This seems to be incontrovertible. 
It is one thing, John, to make a reply to an argument, but quite another 
thing to answer it. 

V. We now come to a passage of very grave and solemn import. 
That we may have it fairly before us, we quote the whole connexion. 

In the third place. The question is not, as " The Deacon" has stated, whether — 
_ " The funds invested in the place of worship, and those which go to the maintenance of the mi- 
nistry, and other charges attendant upon the enjoyment and propagation of the gospel, are a mere 
joint-stock concern, and differing from the property invested in a bank or a road only in the cir- 
cumstance, that the revenue anticipated in the one case consists in dollars, in the other in religious 
and moral improvement. That there is no dedication of property in the one case more than in 
the other." 

And he farther says, that — 

" It is difficult, indeed, to believe that any devout mind can contemplate, without revolting at 
it, this doctrine as thus stated in its naked deformity. Yet it is certainly the fact, that this state- 
ment embraces the essential principle of the trustee system."* 

Now, were this only a reference to an abuse of the system of congregations 



2 



Page 47. 



( 18 ) 



managing their temporalities by committees, or trustees, it would not be worthy of 
notice ; but as it is asserted, that it " is certainly the fact, that this statement em- 
braces the essential principle of the trustee system," it is consequently intended to 
apply to every congregation, without any exception, where the finances have been 
managed by trustees or committee-men ; for no system can exist without its essen- 
tial principle. It therefore becomes absolutely necessary that some notice should 
be taken of it. We will, however, take no more notice of it than it deserves, 
which is to indignantly pronounce it a slander upon every congregation of the Re- 
formed Presbyterian Church, the finances of which have been managed in this 
way, in all the past ages of her history. Ay, and we will hold him to it, until he 
produces one single instance where and when the principle has either been taught 
or practised upon, that church property can " be sold and distributed for the indivi- 
dual benefit of the members of the church, or the pew-holders ;" or "the revenues 
appropriated to the private uses of the members of the congregation ;" " or, in 
case of removal, that any contributor might demand an assessment and receive his 
share," And when, 11 on the other hand, immigrants have attached themselves to 
the church, or individuals made a profession of religion in a particular church ;" 
and it has been denied that " they become entitled to the benefits of the church 
property;" and moreover, when and where it has been denied, " that the poor 
have a real and true joint-interest in the ecclesiastical goods, as well as the 
rich." These particulars are all taken from "The Deacon" page 48, because 
they are given as distinctive of his system, in opposition to that which he 
describes as " the essential principle of the trustee system." And we repeat it, 
that if he cannot show where and when a congregation of Covenanters has offended 
in all or any of the above particulars, he must- stand convicted of publishing a 
slander upon his brethren. And it is difficult indeed to believe, that any devout 
mind can contemplate, without revolting at it, this statement, thus exhibited in its 
naked deformity, unless he be entirely ignorant of the practice of the church in 
this matter, or has entirely forgotten that the ninth commandment has yet a place 
in the decalogue .* 

What a perfect thundergust of indignation we have here! John has 
indignantly pronounced "the Deacon" a slanderer!! This is truly 
awful! Ay, and he " will hold him to it." Yes, hold him to it, John. 
That's the way to fix him. And he "repeats it" too. Yes, John, 
repeat it — drive it right into him — tell him about the ninth command- 
ment, and the tenth, and the seventh and the whole decalogue. Don't 
spare him. Had our worthy friend been as poetically inclined as his 
learned and illustrious predecessor, Rev. C. B, M'Kee, we would have 
expected this bluster to be adorned with some such quotation as this: 

"Winds tempestuous mighty resounding, 
Thick mingled confusion the mountainous roll, 
Shores wide whelmed, waves bursting, bulged navies high bounding, 
Or deep plunged in gulfs yawning that stagger the soul." 

And is it any wonder that his "spirit is stirred within him," when 
his dearest friends are so shamefully slandered? For if he adopts the 
principle that "the greater the truth the greater the slander," we con- 
fess he has good reason to be wrathy. 

But let us dissect this passage a little. And first, Who has "The 
Deacon" slandered? John says, " every congregation of the Reformed 
Presbyterian Church, the finances of which have been managed in this 
way," (that is, by trustees,) " in all the past ages of her history." Has 
he? Well, John, how many congregations, think you, have managed 
their finances by trustees in all the past ages of the church's history? 
How many? Is there one? If there is, name it. We do not believe 
there is a single congregation in the Reformed Presbyterian church, 
which has had even an existence in all the past ages of her history, 
much less one whose finances have been managed by trustees during all 
that period. We might here leave the charge of this indignant pro- 

* Pages 12, 13, 14. 



( 19 ) 



nouncer of slander, inasmuch as there is no such congregation as he de- 
scribes in existence, and of course nobody is slandered. This blast, 
then, is merely our author's way of showing his great "personal re- 
spect" for "The Deacon." But second, there are some congregations 
whose finances are now managed by trustees. Has "The Deacon" 
slandered them? If so, in what does the slander consist? Why, he 
has said that ecclesiastical property, according to the trustee system, dif- 
fers from property invested in a bank only in the different kind of re- 
venue anticipated. And is not this true? Have not the trustees 'of 
church property the same legal privileges and powers as the trustees of 
any other property? If John can show any other difference than that 
slated by "the Deacon," then we will admit, not that he has slandered 
any body, but that he has given an erroneous view of the trustee system. 
We wish to be distinctly understood. We are aware that there are par- 
ticular charters in which the powers of trustees are variously limited. 
Many of them embrace principles not at all essential to the system. 
So also with the charters of banks. We do not refer to these. But on 
the general principle of the trustee system as it exists in any state of the 
union, we challenge him to* show any other difference between the pro- 
perty invested in a bank or a rail-road, and the property of a congrega- 
tion. But he has also said that "there is no dedication of property in 
the one case more than in the other." And is not this also true? If 
the property is dedicated to the Head of the church, ought not His of- 
ficers to take care of it? Our author, on page six, seems horrified at the 
idea of Christ's officers having either " original or appellate jurisdiction," 
ifi any thing respecting church property. Of course, then, he cannot, 
ivithout self-stultification regard it as dedicated. Where then is the 
slander? Where? What a pity, John, you could not find something 
more substantial to vent your indignation upon. 

But "The Deacon " has said that " this statement embraces the essen- 
tial principle of the trustee system." What statement? Not exactly 
the statement embraced in the quotation, as our author falsely asserts. 
For he commences his quotation in the middle of the statement referred 
to by "The Deacon." The quotation indeed embraces one or two in- 
ferences from the principle of the system, the statement of which prin- 
ciple ends just where the quotation begins. This principle as stated by 
"The Deacon" is "that trustees are not church officers, acting in the 
name of the church's Head — but the mere agents of the people." To 
this principle our author has repeatedly given his assent. Why then 
cry out slanderer at "The Deacon" — and w*hy suppress this essential 
part of his statement? By the way, there is something peculiarly lu- 
dicrous in the mode of introducing this quotation and some others. 
John evidently designs in this way to make the Deacon's statement ap- 
pear ridiculous. Hence he picks out two or three detached sentences 
about the forty-seventh or forty-eighth page, near the end of the pam- 
phlet, and parades these forth as " The Deacon's " statement of the ques- 
tion to be discussed. Then, to give it the semblance of such statement, 
he places the word "whether" immediately before, which gives it a 
most awkward and disjointed appearance, since there is nothing in the 
passage from beginning to end to answer his " whether." 

John denies, that on the trustee principle, church property "can be 



( 20 ) 



sold and distributed for the individual benefit of the members of the 
church." Now whether 'The Deacon ' has asserted this, or not, it is 
certainly true. Is not the property the people's? Can they not do 
what they will with their own? What is to prevent them from distri-, 
buting it for their individual benefit? Church officers and courts have 
no original or appellate jurisdiction in such matters, says John. Surely 
then the people can distribute it if they please. Ah, but John says ' The 
Deacon' must produce an instance where this has been done, for he says 
(( no system can exist without its essential principle." True, no system 
can exist independent of the principle essential to its existence, but yet 
a system may exist and some of its essential principles never be carried 
into practice. For example, the right to sell property is a principle es- 
sential to the complete ownership of property, and yet there are multi- 
tudes of men, owners of property, who have never sold it. Indeed 
whenever this essential principle is carried into practice the ownership 
ceases. It is clearly absurd then, to say, that the right of trustees to sell 
property does not exist, unless they have actually sold it. It is one thing 
then to say that by the trustee system property can be disposed of in 
certain ways, and quite another, to say that in every or any given case 
it has been so disposed of. * Trustees can " appropriate the revenues to 
the private uses of the members," if they please. They can grant to 
"any contributor his share," and they can deny to the poor, and to 
strangers, a joint interest in the property if it suits them. 

All "these particulars," which he has " taken from 4 The Deacon' 
page forty-eight," they can do, according to the principle of the trustee 
system, which John so devoutly defends. For certainly if his book has 
any meaning at all, it is that congregations in their congregational capa- 
city, (by which he means trustees,) have the whole management and 
control of their temporalities independent of all church courts. If he 
shrinks from 6 The Deacon's ' inference, it must be because he has not 
the hardihood to defend the principle in its legitimate results. That the 
principle of the system has not often been fully carried out into practice, 
is owing to the restraints of Christian principle, and not to any thing in 
the system itself. It is, to say the least, perfectly childish in the i man ' 
to call upon the Deacon for instances, where this principle has been fully 
carried out, since he has himself admitted and defended the principle.* 

And he knows very well that the most revolting features of every bad 
system are always kept in the back ground until a good opportunity of- 
fers for making them tell to advantage. It is a matter of thankfulness, 
however, that circumstances have occurred which have brought to light 
so many of the abominations of this system, in the Reformed Presbyte- 
rian Church, that no man of intelligence will risk his reputation in de- 
fending it. 

VI. Another of our author's mistakes is found near the foot of page 
fourteen. He says, 

"We have no dispute w T ith 4 The Deacon' about the perpetuity of 

* Had the man been disposed to reason fairly, it would have been his business to show that the 
deductions of the author of the Deacon are not legitimate. But when he admits the principle, 
it is perfectly silly for him to ask for instances, where it has been fully carried out in every particu- 
lar. And even if examples were given, our author has made provision to meet them all, by 
telling us, as he has done, that they are all "abuses" of the trustee system, and he has not "one 
word of apology for any abuses that may be found" in it. 



( 21 ) 



this office. We believe that it is perpetual, and may be recalled at any 
time, when the circumstances of the church require it." 

We wonder if the man did not laugh at this sentence after he had 
written it out. He believes "that it \s perpetual, and may be recalled 
when circumstances require it." So that which is perpetual may occa- 
sionally come to an end, and then have another beginning or not, ac- 
cording to circumstances. That's rather a circumstantial perpetuity, 
John. It reminds us forcibly of a sermon we once heard on the nature 
of the deacon's office, in which the preacher announced with devout 
gravity, as subdivisions of his discourse, 

1st. That the office is perpetual, and 

2nd. That it is contitigent. This would make the deacon a contin- 
gent perpetuity, or rather a perpetual contingency. Our profound 
author makes him a circumstantial perpetuity, or a perpetual circum- 
stance, just as we choose to take it. We had an idea that that which 
is perpetual is uninterrupted, and of course does not cease, and that any 
thing which ceases for a time, and may never again be called into existence, 
is not perpetual. An ordinary and perpetual office, is an office always ex- 
isting under all circumstances. On the contrary, an extraordinary and 
occasional or circumstantial office, is an office that exists occasionally as 
circumstances seem to require. If men allow a perpetual office to cease, 
it is their sin, but this does not change the nature of the office as insti- 
tuted by the Head of the church. The fact that it is perpetual show r s 
that it ought never to cease.* 

VII. In the commencement of his third chapter, our learned author 
falls into more than one of his "slight mistakes." After amusing his 
readers with the spice of his usual pleasant and pious play on the word 
"pioneer," he quotes a sentence or two from "the Deacon," respecting 
the Westminster form of church government. In this quotation it is 
affirmed, that w r hile this document speaks of a special business pertain- 
ing to the office of deacon, it does not affirm that to be his only busi- 
ness. At this he raves and blusters in a manner which clearly indicates 
his inability to meet < the Deacon' on this point, even by a plausible 
sophism. At last he says, in a peculiarly comical style, page 39: 

"But there is a slight mistake in 1 the Deacon's' statement, namely, that it is 
contrary to matter of fact." 

" The Westminster divines do not say that the deacon 1 has a special business.' 

* On page 16, John makes an amusing exhibition of his knowledge of arithmetic. He refers 
to some facts in the history of Covenanters, which had been stated by the author of 4 the Deacon,' 
showing the manner in which the office of deacon came to be neglected among them. He then 
very sagely remarks, that this neglect (i is agreeable to scripture," inasmuch as there was an " oc- 
casion " for the original institution of the office. So it would seem that, had there been no occa- 
sion for the institution of the office, it would be contrary to scripture now to neglect it. Fine rea- 
soning, truly! ! But he says farther, that this " neglect is also agreeable to our form of church go- 
vernment, because it is there said that the number of each of the officers is to be proportioned ac- 
cording to the condition of the congregation." Now as the " number of each of the officers" is 
just one and can be no more, — for each officer is just one officer,— it is hardly necessary to say 
that the Westminster divines use no such ridiculous language. After enumerating the different 
kinds of officers, they say, <: the number of each of which is to be proportioned, &c." We do not 
suppose he means to misquote, but whether or not, the misrepresentation is equally ridiculous. 
Here, then, our author gravely quotes a passage declaring that the number of each kind of officers 
is to be proportioned to the condition of the congregation, to prove that one kind may be dispensed 
with altogether!! How the number of deacons can be in proportion to the condition of the con- 
gregation, where there are no deacons at all, is a mystery above our comprehension. According 
to our ideas, if the number and the condition are to be in proportion where there is no number, 
there is no condition, and of course no congregation. John's arithmetic seems to be as peculiar as 
his grammar. 



( 22 ) 



They say that he is 'to take special care in distributing to the necessities of the 
poor.' And again, 'to take special care for the relief of the poor.' And it is 
perfectly plain that the word special does not apply to the business of the deacon 
at all, but to the care with which he is to attend to that business.' 7 

Now if £ the Deacon' made a tf slight mistake' in not attending to the 
very nice distinction between a "care of the poor," and a "care for the 
relief of the poor," we fear our author has made more than one " slight 
mistake" in these learned criticisms. And, 

1st. He is entirely mistaken in supposing that his discovery of the 
relation of the word special, even if correct, invalidates in any degree 
the declaration of 'the Deacon/ that the Westminster divines do not 
affirm the relief of the poor to be the only business of the deacon. This 
mistake doubtless arises from his ignorance of " correct grammatical 
construction," for it is perfectly evident that when the Westminster 
divines say, it "belongs" to the deacon's office to " take special care 
in distributing to the necessities of the poor," and it "belongs" to his 
office to take special care for the relief of the poor, a general or com- 
mon care in distributing to the necessities of others is implied; so that 
whether we apply the word special to the care of the poor, or to the 
care with which the deacon is to take care of the poor, as the " man " 
will have it, it implies in either case a care for something else. Here, 
by the way, we see the impropriety of those who do not understand 
" correct grammatical construction," attempting publicly to discuss con- 
troverted questions, a clear understanding of which necessarily requires 
correct knowledge of such construction. A special care for one thing 
necessarily presupposes a care for other things. A special care for the 
relief of the poor, presupposes a care for the relief of others. A special 
care in distributing to the necessities of the poor, presupposes a care in 
distributing to the necessities of others. Our worthy friend's mistake 
arises, no doubt, from his confessed ignorance of " correct grammatical 
construction." 

2. Another mistake our author makes in these criticisms is his as- 
sumption that church government is exhibited in detail in the West- 
minster formulary; and that church officers and members have no pow- 
ers but those which are therein specified. This is a gross mistake, for 
the third term of communion declares that the form of church govern- 
ment is therein "for substance, justly exhibited." For substance, not 
in detail. Hence in relation to the office of ruling elder, it is merely 
said that he is "to join with the minister in the government of the 
church," and " to join in government," without any specifications in de- 
tail. We are not therefore to infer that ruling elders have not duties to 
perform severally as well as jointly. That they are not bound to visit 
the sick, pray with them, exhort, reprove and rebuke, and watch over, 
with all diligence the flock of which they have the oversight. That 
they are not to distribute the elements at the Lord's supper nor to attend 
upon the higher judicatories of the church. Hence also in speaking of 
particular congregations it is said that the members are to " meet in one 
assembly for public worship " without any detail of the other affairs and 
duties of a congregation. The assumption of our author then is not 
merely a slight but a very gross mistake — not only contrary to the mat- 
ter of fact, but so palpably contrary thereto that it is hard to believe he 
is so ignorant as not to know it. But ignorance of grammatical con- 
struction will lead to very glaring mistakes. 

VIII. On page forty our author makes a very awkward blunder. He 



( 23 ) 



says that " in the act of the General Assembly of the church of Scotland 
approving of the (Westminster) form of government, there is ample evi- 
dence that the confining of the deacon's office to the - care of the poor ' 
received their hearty concurrence." Now the blunder consists in this, 
that this form of government does not confine the deacon's office to the 
care of the poor at all, and of course the act adopting it can give no evi- 
dence that the church of Scotland heartily concurred in such confine- 
ment. The form of government prohibits the deacon from preaching 
the word and administering the sacraments, and the adopting act shows 
that the church of Scotland heartily concurred in these prohibitions. 
But it nowhere prohibits him from the management of the temporalities 
of the church. On the contrary it gives one specification of his power 
to manage these temporalities in distributing a portion of them to the 
poor, showing his general power by a particular application, — just as our 
Saviour teaches the doctrine of a general superintending providence by 
pointing to the fowls of the air, — the lilies of the field — and the hairs of 
our heads. And as the church of Scotland heartily concurs in all this, 
of course it concurs in the ftow-prohibition of the deacon from the ma- 
nagement of the temporalities generally. This looks very much like a 
wilful mistake in our author. 

IX. Another mistake worthy of notice occurs on page twenty-three. 
He says the author of the Deacon " knows that only a few months be- 
fore the publication of his Essay, the very synod of which he is a mem- 
ber declared that ( the exercise of the Deacon's office does not extend 
to all the temporalities of the church.' " 

Now our worthy friend's mistake here consists in this, that there is 
no truth in his statement. No resolution of any kind on the subject of 
the deacon's power was passed by synod at the time referred to, and no 
such declaration was ever made by synod at any time. It is therefore 
impossible that the author of the Deacon could " know " any such thing. 
A preamble and resolution on the subject of deacons was indeed offered 
at that meeting by a very amiable and reverend father, merely for the 
sake of peace, but it was not passed; for even the venerable and peace- 
ful mover, after he succeeded in producing no small degree of " dissen- 
sion and disputation," voted against his own motion. We do not call 
our author's mistake a breach of the ninth commandment, but we leave 
every one to call it by such name as he may think fit. 

X. There are a few characteristic blunders in his appendix, which de- 
serve a passing notice, and with these we close our remarks in relation 
to such matters. To notice them all would be entirely out of the ques- 
tion. He admits the truth of the declaration of synod that "our cove- 
nanted uniformity does not recognise as of divine right the congrega- 
tional trustee" But he asks, "Will any person maintain that every 
thing that is not recognised in our covenanted uniformity must be re- 
jected by the church?" Yes, John, we will maintain this. For our 
covenanted uniformity recognises every thing taught in the word of 
God. We do not stop to prove this, for it is evident to any one who 
can read the Confession of Faith, the Catechisms — the form of govern- 
ment — the covenants — or the Directories for worship. We will there- 
fore take this 'for granted until it is denied — and we trust no 4 man ' 
professing to be a covenanter will have the hardihood to deny that it 
recognises every principle taught in the Bible. If then the congrega- 
tional trustee can be fairly deduced from scripture, our covenanted uni- 



( 24 ) 



formity recognises him. But synod has declared that our covenanted uni- 
formity does not recognise him. The conclusion then is irresistible that 
the scriptures recognise no such personage. Thus falls the whole cobweb 
which John has taken so much pains to weave. The admission of this 
fact was a sad blunder, John. 

Our author says farther, that the election of church officers by the 
people is not recognised in our covenanted uniformity. Another mis- 
take, John. This is a scriptural principle and a scriptural practice, and 
of course recognised in our covenanted uniformity. But if John will 
look at the first article of the solemn league and covenant, he will find 
that the "preservation of the reformed religion in the church of Scot- 
land, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government/' is a very pro- 
minent part of our covenanted uniformity. And by referring to her 
Books of Discipline, he will find that election to office by the consent 
or will of the congregation is a doctrine very clearly taught there, and 
the contrary doctrine explicitly condemned. Our covenanted uniform- 
ity then explicitly recognises this principle.* Again, he says "The 
synod, if forced to come to a vote on that question, would undoubtedly 
decide that the choice of officers by the people is not recognised in our 
covenanted uniformity. How do you know, John? Perhaps if synod 
was forced to vote as you wish, they might so vote — but we are confi- 
dent that under no constraint short of absolute force would they vote 
such an untruth — nor do we believe they could be even forced to such 
a vote. These are very bad blunders, John. 

Our author seems rather puzzled to know how to dispose of the de- 
claration of Synod respecting the power of a consistory by divine right 
for consultation or advice for the well ordering of the temporal affairs 
of the congregation. He says, " If consistories have no power except 
for consultation or advice, they have just no official power at all." 
We confess we cannot see how it is, or why it is, that they cannot hold 
official consultations, and either give or receive official advice. And 
we are inclined to think that even if their power ended with the "con- 
sultation," it might possibly he official power still. But although John 
makes it end there, Synod seems to have carried it a little farther. The 
declaration of synod is, that they have power by divine right to carry 
out the result of their consultations into action, namely, " the well or- 
dering of the temporal affairs of the congregation." They have not 
merely power to consult, but to order well the congregational tempo- 
ralities; and that this end may be the better attained, they have this 
power to deliberate or consult together like any other deliberative body. 

His representation of this act of Synod as relating merely to " a right 
to give a good advice, which belongs to every individual of the human 
family," certainly shows great respect for the supreme judicatory of the 
church. We are not partial to the mode of expression used by Synod? 
We think the language of the form of government itself, namely, that 
the officers shall meet together "for the well ordering of the affairs of 
the congregation," more clear and definite than that of Synod; and we 
are not sure but that the new phrase "consultation or advice" rather 
darkens the language of the standards. But to torture their language 
into mere childish nonsense would certainly be unbecoming in any mem- 
ber of the church except our < man,' and it is (if such a thing were pos- 
sible) almost too contemptible even for him. 

* If any thing in the form of government seems to contradict this principle, it is carefully guarded 
against in the adopting act 



( 25 ) 



He tells us also that "it must be the congregation " the officers are 
to advise. He must have forgotten that at the time this declaration 
was made by Synod, the world had not been enlightened by his book, 
and very likely the members ot Synod may not have been acquainted 
with the doctrine he elucidates so clearly, that the management of con- 
gregational temporalities belongs to "congregations in their congrega- 
tional capacity." He is rather hasty in supposing they meant to corro- 
borate this notion of his. And it is possible as they may have been in- 
clined to the opinion of the Westminster divines, that the officers are 
to meet together for the well ordering of the temporal affairs of the con- 
gregation, they may have entertained the idea that they would consult 
and advise, not with the congregation, but vvith each other in regard to 
these affairs. 

But this trick of twisting, torturing, and misrepresenting the language 
of Synod has been practised so long by the trustee brethren that it has 
become a habit with them,* and John has rather betrayed his friends by 
undue haste this time. For it is well known that the whole trustee 
party contended to the very last in Synod against this part of the reso- 
lution. And although the phrase "consultation or advice" may have 
been introduced in order to make the resolution more palatable to this 
party, yet they opposed it as strenuously as they could have opposed it, 
had it been framed in the very language of the standards where this 
softening phrase is not found. And after all this, our * man,' and it may 
be a few others, pretend that this resolution exactly accords with their 
views. Such chicanery would be a disgrace to men of common honesty, 
to say nothing of Christianity. 

* To give some idea of the tricks resorted to, in order to make the impression that the action of 
Synod has always been in favour of the trustee system, we relate one as a sample. At the meet- 
ing of Synod in 1838 a complaint was presented by the trustee party of the Philadelphia congre- 
gation against the session of that congregation, for having ordained deacons and established a con- 
sistory for the management of their temporalities. This complaint was referred to the committee 
on discipline of which Rev. T. Sproull was chairman. This committee, aware, no doubt, that 
synod would not sanction a report either condemning a consistory or the action of the Philadelphia 
session in the case, brought in a report purely non-committal — neither approving nor condemning 
any thing, but merely saying they had nothing to recommend. Synod, however, amended this re- 
port by adding an expression of their hope that ail the Philadelphia congregation would acquiesce 
in the order established among them, which had been the subject of complaint. Mr. Sproull and 
his little party voted against this amendment. There the matter seemed to rest. At the meeting 
of Synod in 1845, however, several papers on the subject of deacons came up from the Pittsburgh 
and Allegheny congregation. In one of these, written by the Pastor, Rev. Mr. Sproull, this very 
resolution of Synod in 1838 is claimed as favouring the trustee system. And that he may enjoy 
the privilege of explaining it to suit his purpose, he boldly avows himself to be its author. The 
object of this avowal evidently was under pretence of authorship to explain away the obvious 
meaning of the resolution. The history of the transaction however was well recollected by others, 
but especially by Rev. J. M. Willson, who had been deeply interested in that report. He denied 
that Mr. Sproull was the author of the clause which expressed the hope that all would acquiesce in 
the consistory. He said the report brought in by Mr. Sproull was quite different from the resolution 
adopted,— that part of it had been rejected by Synod, and the phrase in question proposed by him- 
self (Mr. W.) and inserted on his motion, Mr. Sproull and some of his friends voting against it. 
Mr. Sproull again and again asserted that he was the author of that clause. He was absolutely 
positive. He knew he could not be mistaken, for he distinctly recollected writing it in committee 
at the suggestion of Mr. Roney. After a good many assertions on the part of Mr. S., and denials 
on the part of Mr. Willson, the latter presented the original paper with the report of the committee 
in Mr. SprouH's handwriting, and the amendment proposed by himself and adopted by Synod, 
added in his own handwriting, which Mr. S. so distinctly recollected having written himself. 
This is a fair specimen of the way in which the action of Synod has been tortured to serve the 
purposes of these trustee brethren. We would be sorry to charge Mr. S. with wilful misrepresen- 
tation. For however difficult it is to believe that he could have had a distinct recollection of a 
transaction that never took place, we have little doubt that he had actually wrought himself up to 
believe what he stated. We know there is not a more amiable man living than Mr. S., but his 
mind is so warped on this subject and his prejudices so deep-rooted, having so far committed -him- 
self, that his doings and sayings in relation to it are entirely unlike himself 



( 26 ) 



We come n(iw to notice briefly our author's 

ARGUMENTS. 

Here we have a word to say about his statement of the question. 
He furnishes his readers with some eight or ten pages of very enter- 
taining discourse — -quoting a great number of scraps of sentences from 
"the Deacon, " most of them found towards the end of that work — and 
telling us that this, that, and the other is not the question. Now were 
it true that the author of 'The Deacon ■ stated all the points our friend 
has scraped together, as points to be discussed, which it is not — and had 
he proceeded to the discussion of every one of them, we do not see that 
he should be blamed for not knowing what particular points our author 
meant to oppose. He seems to think that ' the Deacon' should say 
nothing with which he is agreed, and to be really wrathy because he 
has inculcated some doctrines, to which he cannot take exceptions. And 
these he calls mis-statements of the question. We trust, when the author 
of tbe Deacon writes another book, he will consult Mr. Nightingale, so 
that he may teach nothing that he will not feel free to oppose. This 
will be some comfort to our friend. 

After our author gets down to the fifth place in his statement of the 
question, he says, page 16, 

"The question is not whether the Deacons have power about the temporalities of 
the Church. The affirmative of this is admitted, (for the supplies for the poor are 
temporalities,) but how much power have they? Or, when simply stated, the ques- 
tion for discussion seems to be this — Has the Head of the Church committed the ma- 
nagement of all her temporal concerns to the officers, or left a part of them to be managed 
hy the body of the faithful?' 1 

Now this statement of the question is self-contradictory and absurd. 
First, it admits that Deacons have power about the temporalities of the 
church, and afterwards states in other words, that the real question is 
whether they have this power. You know, John, that "the whole is 
equal to its parts/' and of course the parts are equal to the whole. You 
know too that the temporalities of the church consist of funds for the 
relief of the poor, and funds for other ecclesiastical purposes. You can- 
not deny this, John. Whoever then has power about the temporalities 
of the church, has power about that of which these temporalities consist 
— the parts being equal to the whole, and the whole to its parts. The 
Deacons then having power about the temporalities of the church, have 
power about funds for the poor, and for other ecclesiastical purposes. 
This reasoning may be stated syllogistically, thus: — 

The temporalities of the church are — funds for the poor and for other 
ecclesiastical purposes. 

But Deacons have power about the temporalities of the church. 

Therefore Deacons have power about the funds of the poor, and for 
other ecclesiastical purposes. 

Now, after this admission, it is a perfect farce to state as the question 
to be discussed, whether the officers have the management of all the tem- 
poral concerns of, the church, or only a part of them. The question, 
"how much power have they?" thrown in, in the middle of the para- 
graph, is so foreign to the true issue, that the "man " jumps away from 
it at once himself. 

The real point on which John is at issue with the author of " the 
Deacon v is, whether the officers have power about the temporalities 



( 27 ) 



of the church, as asserted in our testimony, or only about a part of 
these temporalities. And had it not been that lie wished to seem in 
favour of the standards of the church, while in reality opposed to them, 
he would have stated it in some such language as this. For we are very- 
sure our author and all his party would gladly see that declaration by 
which he has stultified himself, for ever expunged from our testimony. 
And that other little paragraph in the form of government which says 
that pastor, elders, and deacons, are "to meet together for the well or- 
dering of the affairs of the congregation," they could also very conve- 
niently dispense with. 

So far as we are concerned, however, we do not object to his state- 
ment of the question. The contradictions with which* he has clogged 
it, injure nobody but himself. In order to get fairly at his arguments 
we have next to turn over to page twenty-four, where we find another 
statement of the question, in the following words: 

"The only point of dispute between 'The Beacon'' and ourselves is, whether or 
not the Deacon's power extends to all the temporalities of the Church; or, to narrow 
it down still farther, it is, whether or not his assertion be true that " the entire fund 
formed by contributions for ecclesiastical purposes, was at first managed by the 
Apostles, and by them transferred to the Deacons."* For this alleged fact is the 
very foundation of his system; and we freely admit, that if it be true, it is a scriptural 
one; but if, on the contrary, we can demonstrate that this assertion is not true, then 
his foundation will be removed, and, as a natural consequence, all that has been built 
upon it will fall to the ground." 

Here we wish the reader to note the admission, that if the entire 
fund for ecclesiastical purposes was at first managed by the apostles, and 
by them transferred to the Deacons, then it. follows that the system ad- 
vocated by the author of "The Deacon" is a scriptural system. On 
this single point, according to his own admission, the whole controversy 
turns. Let this be borne in mind as we proceed. 

Then he gives us the position he means to defend — which makes his 
fourth or fifth mode of stating the question. It is this: 

"We take the position that the apostles did not manage that fund, nor assume any 
control over it, and consequently did not transfer it to the deacons, but left it by the 
will of the Church's Head to be managed by the body of the faithful in their social 
congregated capacity." 

Here then we have at last a plain position, and we take it as he is 
pleased to present it. On this we join issue. Flow does he support his 
position? Why, his first argument is in these words: — 

" First, it is impossible, from the very nature of the apostles 1 duties, that they could 
have managed this fund." 

This strikes us like proving one assertion by making another. We 
admit indeed that if the thing was impossible, then it was not done. 
But why was it impossible? Because "daily in the temple and in every 
house they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ." Then it was 
impossible that any of them that believed could have managed this fund, 
for "all that believed — continued daily with one accord in the temple, 
and breaking bread from house to house." — Acts ii. 44, 46. If this 
proves an impossibility in the one case, so it does in the other, and 
John's theory falls to the ground, and indeed the whole business would 
iall through, for nobody could attend to it. This attention to teaching 
and preaching, however, was by no means inconsistent with their ma- 



* Page 26. 



( 28 ) 



nagement of this fund, for Paul says in regard to his stay at Ephesus, 
" that by the space of three years he ceased not to warn every one 
night and day." — Acts xx. 31. And yet in verse 34 he declares that 
during this period his own hands had ministered to his own necessities, 
and the necessities of ihem that were with him. So that this " not 
ceasing" to teach, or preach, or warn, is perfectly consistent with a very 
considerable degree of attention to secular affairs. And when the apos- 
tles say, " We will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the mi- 
nistry of the word," whether they mean exclusive attention or not, is 
of no consequence as regards our author's assertion. For they speak re- 
specting "the future" — what they will do. when the Deacons are ap- 
pointed — but nothing of what they had done previously. If any infe- 
rence respecting their past conduct can be drawn from the expres- 
sion, it is that they had not given themselves "continually to the mi- 
nistry of the word." He says farther that " the spiritual wants of about 
twelve thousand people," and their own (the apostles') private devo- 
tions, required so much attention, as to render it impossible for them to 
attend to the daily ministration. This is precisely the same assertion re- 
peated in another form. It is nothing, however, but mere assertion — 
but it is the very point to be proved, and there is no attempt at proof. 
Had it been impossible, no doubt they would have appointed the Dea- 
cons sooner. 

"Some," he says, "attempt to avoid the force of this argument by 
saying that they were assisted by some of the people." Who these 
u some " are we do not know. Indeed we think it doubtful whether 
any body ever said so. We can see no sense in attempting to avoid the 
force of this ' argument,' in this way or any other way, for there is really 
no force in it. It is certainly a trifling business to attempt to avoid that 
which has no existence. But Peter said " Silver and gold have I none." 
This was a true saying of Peter, for not one of them said that any of the 
things he possessed were his own. So much for his first "argument" 
so called. 

His second argument runs thus: — 

*' The Apostles, in their direction* to the multitude, * to look out among them seven 
men whom they might appoint' over, the need, that then appeared, very clearly inti- 
mate that they had not yet entered upon any business of that kind." 

If our author means, that the apostles intimate that these seven men 
had not yet entered upon that kind of business, we perfectly agree with 
him. They do very clearly intimate that. But if he means that they 
hereby intimate that they themselves had not yet entered upon that kind 
of business, we beg leave to differ with him. When they speak of ap- 
pointing seven men over a certain business, they intimate clearly that 
they then had charge of that business — otherwise, their appointing men 
over it would be an act of usurpation on their part. The appointment 
of these men over this business, does not indeed, of itself intimate 
whether the apostles had "yet entered upon that kind of business " or 
not; but it does intimate their right to attend to such business, and also, 
their right to appoint such other persons to attend to it as the people 
might choose. But he goes on to fortify his assertion (for what he calls 
an argument is merely an assertion,) in this way. 



* Acts, vi. 2—3. 



( 29 ) 



"For, they say, ' it is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve 
tables.' They do not give a single hint that they had, in their past experience, or 
that they then found money matters to be burdensome to them. They speak of it only 
in the future. ' It is not reason that we should,'' &e., &c. It is plain, therefore, that 
they had not yet left the word of God to serve tables, or as ' The Deacon ' would 
have it, ' to devote themselves to pecuniary affairs.' "* 

Now, when the apostles say, " it. is not reason that we should leave 
the word of God and serve tables," they do seem to give a kind of 
" hint," "that they then found money matters" or serving tables some 
sort of incumbrance to them. Oh, but he says, " they speak of it only 
in the future. 4 It is not reason that we should, &c.' " Now, John, 
it so happens that "should" is not a sign of the future tense at all; and 
of course they do not speak in the future at all. Had your instructor in 
Greek given you a few lessons in English grammar, he might have 
saved you from thus exposing yourself to the ridicule of every school 
boy. "They speak of it only in the future." Is this feigned or real 
ignorance? It is plain, however, from the whole passage, that there was 
nothing against reason in their serving tables, either in the past or future, 
provided it could be done without " leaving the word of God." It is 
their " leaving the word" to serve tables, and not their attention to the 
table service, so far as that could be done consistently with a due atten- 
tion to the ministry of the w r ord, that is here condemned." So much for 
argument number two. 

That which he calls his third argument is a bare assertion that the 
scriptures are silent as to the management of this fund by the apostles. 
The falsehood of this assertion, will be shown hereafter. "We now come 
to notice his fourth and main argument, together with its accompanying 
illustrations. 

His fourth argument is a positive assertion, that this fund was ma- 
naged by the people with the approbation of the apostles. This he at- 
tempts to support by a reference to two or three texts of scripture, and 
several pages of a sort of special pleading. Before he proceeds to this, 
however, he respectfully invites the reader's attention, and requests him 
to " subject this argument ! to the most severe scrutiny; for this is the 
keystone of the arch." He evidently conceits that this is a masterstroke, 
so that hereafter a vestige of "The Deacon" will never be heard of. 
Well, let us scrutinize this argument a little. 

As a proof of his assertion that the people, and not the apostles ma- 
naged this fund, he refers first to Acts ii. 44 — 45: "And all that be- 
lieved were together, and had all things common, and sold their posses- 
sions and goods, and parted them to all as every man had need." Then 
after a page or so of remarks, that have no direct reference to the argu- 
ment, he says: — 

"Now we appeal to every candid and sensible person, to every one capable of the 
least reflection, and to the most profound thinker, to decide, whether or not there is 
in this scripture record the most positive and conclusive testimony that this fund was 
not managed by the Apostles, but by the body of the faithful. Here, then, we see that 
the King and the Head of the Church, in his infinite goodness and wisdom, has given 
to her a patternt for conducting her temporal affairs in her New Testament form." 

* Page 28. 

t It should be remarked here, that a part of the transactions recorded in these passages, was 
extraordinary, and consequently not a rule to others. The casting all their property into a com- 
mon stock, was extraordinary. This is manifest from the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts, v. 
1. Peter says, " Whilst it remained, was it not thine own 1 and after it was sold, was it not in 
thine own power 1" The liberality of these disciples exceeded. In other respects, their conduct 
was according to those laws of moral duty which are universally binding upon church members, 



( 30 ) 



Here, if we understand our author, he thinks this text proves that the 
body of the faithful managed this fund in their own proper persons. 
His appeal to every sort of person the slightest degree above idiocy, 
"whether or not," this is "positive and conclusive testimony that this 
fund was not managed by the apostles, but by the body of the faithful, 
is certainly intended to intimate that the people managed this fund by 
their own hands, and in no other way." 

Now we suppose nobody ever denied, or ever thought of denying 
that the people "parted their possessions to those who ha*d need." But 
the question is whether this was clone by the people in their congrega- 
tional capacity with their own hands, or by the hands of their office- 
bearers the apostles. This is the very point. And, whether this was 
done by their own hands or by the hands of their officers, it is equally 
true that the people did it. 

This involves the great principle of representation — the principle on 
which the posterity of Adam are said to have "sinned in him," — the 
principle on which Christ's righteousness becomes ours — the principle 
which runs through the whole plan of salvation, and God's gracious 
dealings with men — the fundamental principle of Presbyterianism in 
the church and Republicanism in the state. This principle is almost 
universally recognised. Hence the maxim, that "what a man does by 
another, he does himself." It is frequently recognised in the scriptures. 
Take two or three examples. Mat. xviii. 17, " Tell it to the church: 
but if he neglect to hear the church." John will admit (for he professes 
to be a Presbyterian,) that by " the Church " here, the officers or repre- 
sentatives of the church, and not the body of the faithful, are meant. 
In 2 Sam. xii. 9, the prophet Nathan charges David with the murder of 
Uriah. " Thou hast killed Uriah." David had not, in his own person, 
killed Uriah. He had slain him, indeed, but it was " with the sword of 
the children of Amman." In Exodus xxxiii. 35, it is said that, "the 
Lord plagued the people, because they made the calf that Aaron made." 
Aaron himself had made the calf. The people had consented thereto, 
and hence they are said to have made it. Examples of the application 
of this principle might be multiplied to any extent. But these are suffi- 
cient. If telling " the church," then, and hearing "the church" does 
not prove that the whole body of the faithful should be told and heard. 
If the declaration of the inspired prophet to David, "Thou hast killed 
Uriah," does not prove that David killed him with his own hands — if 
the declaration that the people of Israel made the calf, does not prove 
that they made it with their own hands — neither does the declaration 
that "all that believed parted their goods," prove that they parted them 
with their own hands. But why reason this point? — for our 'man' 
himself has admitted it. On page 10 he says, 

"The truth is, that when congregations appoint a few of their number to act 
for them in this matter, they do it upon the same principle precisely that synods 
and presbyteries transact business by committees; which is, that the acts ot 
these committees, when according to their instructions, are the acts of the con- 
gregation. 7 ' 

So, then, the acts of "a few of their number are," in certain cases* 
" the acts of the congregation." And consequently if a few of the 

who are always under obligation to take care of the poor; to maintain the ministry, to make other 
accessary provision for attendance upon, and dispensation of Gospel ordinances; to spread the 
Gospel ; and to promote the temporal welfare of the brethren as they have opportunity. To ac- 
complish these purposes, this common fund was formed, but with extraordinary liberality, so that 
none among them lacked." "The Deacon," page 25. 



( 31 ) 



number of those that believed, acting on their behalf, parted their goods 
— all that believed parted them. Again, page 32, speaking of the ne- 
glect of the Grecian widows by those who had the management of this 
fund, he says that "the Hebrews, when selecting persons to take the 
more immediate charge of so much money," &c. So, then, 44 all that 
believed" did not by their own hands manage this fund, but selected 
persons to do it. "The legs of the lame are not equal.'' It is really 
amusing, after this, to read the last, of the four lessons which on page 
28 he says he learns from this text. Here it is: 

"4th. We learn from this pattern, which was dictated hy unerring wisdom, that 
this fund is to be managed by the people in their congregational capacity ; for 4 all that 
believed parted them to all men as every man had need.' " 

How he can learn from this text that 44 the people in their congrega- 
tional capacity " managed this fund, when at the same time the He- 
brews managed it by the hands of 44 a few " "residents of the place of 
known responsibility,"* is a mystery to us. What we learn from the 
passage is, that all that believed parted their goods — but whether by 
their own hands or by the hands of others, we must learn somewhere 
else. This passage saith not. 

The next passage, he refers to is Acts iv. 32, 34, 35. Here it is said 
that 44 as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and 
brought the price of the things that were sold and laid them down at 
the Apostles' feet, and distribution was made to every man according 
as he had need." On this he remarks, that only a "part of the com- 
mon fund was laid at the apostles' feet." This needs proof. He gives 
none. He says, 44 it is evident." Where is the evidence?*)* He says, 
farther, that no 44 change was made in the arrangement." Let this be 
admitted, and still he has so far proved nothing. If this passage is si- 
lent as to who were the distributors, (to use his own grammar,) then 
he has made no progress at all. He will find it a slow process to prove 
his position by texts that are silent on the subject. 44 But," says John, 
44 it may be asked, Why did these people lay the prices of their lands 
and houses at the apostles' feet, if they were not to manage them?" 
And he freely admits 44 that these contributors were not only willing 
that the apostles should take charge of them, but that they laid them 
at their feet, for that very purpose. But in the absence of all other 
testimony, it is certainly insufficient to prove that this was the will of the 
church's Head" What, John! What! Is it, indeed, not the will of 
the Head of the church that this fund should be managed according to 
the will of the people? What, then, would become of the radical prin- 
ciple of the trustee system ? Has the church's Head indeed left this 
matter to be managed according to the will of the people? And have 
the people a right to 44 appoint a few of their number to act for them?" 
And did the people lay their contributions at the apostles' feet for the 
44 very purpose" that it should be managed by them? And after all 
this, are we told that it is not the will of the church's Head that the 
apostles should manage it? Oh John, John, you have made a sad 
blunder in admitting that it was the will of the people that the apostles 
should take charge of their contributions. And you tell us, moreover, 
on page 33, that the apostles 44 were not careless spectators of what was 

* Page 32. 

t The only evidence he can produce is, that Ananias and Sapphira kept back a part. He is 
welcome to all the aid he can get from this circumstance. 



( 32 ) 



going on. And being 'commissioned to erect the fabric of the church 
in her New Testament form,' they could not tolerate for a moment, 
any thing contrary to the will of the Head of the church." If, then, 
this money was laid at the apostles' feet, for the very purpose that 
they should take charge of it, and if they tolerated these contributors 
in laying it at their feet for that very purpose, as they certainly did; 
and if they could not tolerate any thing contrary to the will of the Head 
of the church, then it is clear beyond all contradiction, that the manage- 
ment of this fund by the apostles, was agreeable to the will of the Head 
of the church. You have answered your own argument, friend, most 
effectually. 

He. says, farther, that " the Spirit of inspiration preserves an inten- 
tional silence" in this passage, "as to who were the distributors, as if 
anticipating and guarding against the very misapprehension of < The 
Deacon' on this subject." John is here wise above what is written. 
What "the Spirit of inspiration" " anticipated and guarded against" 
in this text, by his "intentional silence as to who were the distribu- 
tors," and his intentional silence as to a thousand other things, (for 
there are many important truths respecting which this text is silent,) 
we presume John is altogether ignorant. " Secret things belong to the 
Lord." It savours, too, of irreverence, to say that the Spirit of God 
guards against misapprehension on any subject, by "intentional si- 
lence" respecting it. He guards his people against error by revealing 
the truth to them, and not by intentional silence. Our author asserts 
that this text shows that no change had been made in the distributors. 
It shows no such thing. It says, "distribution was made," — whether 
by the hands of the same distributors, or by others, we are not here in- 
formed. But if it did prove that no change was made, it makes nothing 
for him, as he has failed to prove that the people were the distributors 
at first. 

The third and last passage to which he refers to support the "key- 
stone of his arch," is Acts vi. 1: "And in those days, when the num- 
ber of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the 
Grecians against the Hebrews; because their widows were neglected 
in the daily ministration." On this text he very sagaciously asks, — 
"Now is it not perfectly plain, that there could have been no cause for 
murmuring against any but the managers of the 6 daily ministration?' " 
" And if the apostles had managed it the murmuring would have been all 
against them." Then, if " persons selected as a committee or trustees," 
according to our author's plan, had had the charge of this money, the 
murmuring would have been all against them. If it is "contrary to 
reason and common sense." as he says, that the Grecians should mur- 
mur against any but the actual managers, then the trustee system is un- 
reasonable and senseless. You ought to be careful, John, not to use a 
weapon that can so easily be turned against yourself. Farther, he says 
it is impossible that the apostles would have neglected their duty in this 
way. If this be so, then the apostles were more suitable persons to 
*have charge of this business, our own man himself being judge, than 
his imaginary trustees. The apostles, however, were not omniscient, 
and it is not at all an impossible thing that they should unintentionally 
neglect some who had a claim for their portion in the daily ministra- 
tion. But as soon as they were informed of this neglect, and perceiving 
that the business had so greatly increased that they must leave " the 



( 33 ) 



word of God " if they attended to it, they immediately appoint others 
to take charge of it. These imaginary difficulties, then, exist only in 
the shallow brains of our author. 

Next we are told that the Hebrews had the control of the daily mi- 
nistrations. What! the Hebrews had the control. Why we thought 
"all that believed" had the control — the body of the faithful — the 
people in their congregational capacity. But now it seems it was the 
Hebrews — and those Hebrews only that were natives of the place. 
Then, again, it was " residents of the place of known responsibility,' 7 
selected by the native Hebrews. And is it possible that the native 
Hebrews had a complete monopoly of this business, to the exclusion 
of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in 
Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egyptians, 
Libyans, Cyrenians, strangers of Rome, Cretes, Arabians, and all those 
" devout men out of every nation under heaven," that were then 
dwelling at Jerusalem? " But the question here arises," says John, 
" how did the Hebrews obtain the control of this fund, if all that be- 
lieved had an equal share in its management?" Yes, John, we thought 
that question would arise thereabouts. How is it that all that believed 
had an equal share in its management, when some that believed had 
no r share in its management? How did all that believed have the 
control of it, while many that believed had no control of it? That's 
a knotty question for you, John. Well, how is it answered. Why, 
1. The Hebrews were natives of the place. 2. They were conse- 
quently a large majority of the people, (that is, in consequence of being 
natives, we suppose.) 3. They had contributed the greater part of the 
fund. 4. They selected persons to take charge of this money. 5. 
They would not choose strangers. 6. Little could be known of stran- 
gers. 7. They would choose residents of the place. 8. They would 
choose persons of known responsibility. 9. The Hebrews first formed 
this fund. 10. The Grecians joined them. 11. The Grecians con- 
formed to the existing arrangements. And "hence," he says, "this 
murmuring against the Hebrews." This is his solution of the diffi- 
culty. Now, were every one of this jumble of suppositions, assertions 
and assumptions true, they would make no approximation to a solution 
of the difficulty. Suppose these Hebrews were natives, how could all 
that believed have an equal share in the management of this fund, and 
at the same time these Hebrews have the whole management? Sup- 
pose, again, that these native Hebrews were a large majority, still, how 
could all that believed have an equal share, when all except the He- 
brews had no share? And suppose again, that these Hebrews had se- 
lected persons to take charge of this fund, the question still remains — 
how is it possible that all had an equal share in its management, when 
the Hebrews alone, or a few selected by them, had the whole manage- 
ment? How could it be parted by all that believed in their own pro- 
per persons, when the Grecians who believed, and many others had 
nothing to do in the parting of it. Were his suppositions all true, it 
would follow beyond all contradiction, that the fund was not distri- 
buted by the body of the faithful in their own proper persons, but by 
a small portion of native Hebrews chosen by the other native Hebrews. 
The difficulty, then, instead of being solved, is presented in a still 
stronger light by the ingenuity of this expert theologian, and the ques- 
tion still stares him in the face — how did "all that believed" manage 
3 



( 34 ) 



and distribute this fund, in their own proper persons, when all that be- 
lieved did not manage and distribute it in their own proper persons? 
This is a snarl, John, that will require greater ingenuity than you are 
master of, to unravel. 

It is worthy of remark, however, that the eleven suppositions by which 
he pretends to solve his difficulty, are every one of them incapable of 
proof. Two or three of them may be true, but John does not know 
whether they are or not. Most of them are not true, and we defy him 
to prove a single one of them. Whether true or false, however, they 
are of no use to him. 

Before he sums up his argument, he says, — 

ft We once heard it remarked, as an objection to this view, that the apostles were Hebrews. 
This is admitted, but it does not benefit the objector at all; for this was certainly not their official 
designation. And if they only acted as Hebrews, it confirms our view of the subject." 

To say nothing of this senseless jargon about distributing money "as 
Hebrews," or as apostles, or as believers,* it is quite as reasonable that 
the Grecians should murmur against the Hebrews, provided the distri- 
bution was made by the apostles — the chief men among the Hebrews, 
as that they should so murmur, provided the distribution was made by 
a few individuals selected from among the Hebrews. Indeed, the more 
prominent the individuals, the more likely it is that the class to which 
they belonged would be murmured against. But if the Apostles acted 
as Hebrews in distributing the money, " it confirms his view of the sub- 
ject." That is, it confirms him in the belief that they did not act at all 
1 — for that is his view of the subject. Strange confirmation. 

Our champion then goes to work to set down in a concise form the 
points which he conceits he has proved — or to sum up his "argument," 
as he is pleased to style this part of his performance, thus — 

"As the spirit of inspiration teaches in the first portion of Scripture referred to, that this fund 
was formed and distributed by " all that believed;" and in the second, simply that " it was distri- 
buted," without stating by whom — showing that no change had been made; and in the third, that 
one part of the people murmured against the other for neglect in " the daily ministration." There- 
fore this fund was managed throughout by the body of the faithful, the apostles taking nothing at 
all to do with it. And therefore they did not transfer the management of this fund to the deacons, 
for no person can transfer to another that which he does not himself possess." 

That is to say, 1. This fund was at first distributed by "all that be- 
lieved." 2. It "was distributed," without stating by whom, which 
shows clearly that it was by "all that believed." 3. One part of "all 
that believed" murmured against another part of "all that believed," 
because "all that believed " neglected a third part of themselves in the 
daily ministration, — they who were neglected, and they who murmured 
having as much to do in the distribution as those murmured against. 
This is certainly a very sensible and reasonable account of this matter. 

On this passage we remark, first, that we have shown that the text on 
which his whole theory is built does not prove that "all that believed " 
were the distributors in their own proper persons. And unless it does 
this, his system falls to the ground. It has not a single prop to keep it 
up. And second, the other text he refers to he confesses is silent "as 
to who were the distributors." If it proved that there was no ehange, 
which it does not, it would make nothing for him, as he has failed to 
prove that "all that believed" were the distributors at first. And, third, 
on his own hypothesis that the murmuring would be all against the dis- 
tributors, if one part of the people murmured against another part — all 

* We presume those who distributed this money acted neither as apostles, nor as Hebrews, nor 
yet as believers, but as distributors. 



( 35 ) 



could not have been distributors. The part that murmured certainly 
had no hand in this business. He answers all his own arguments as he 
goes along. His conclusions are a curiosity in the way of logic. 
Having just proved that at least they who murmured and they who 
were neglected, and (if we take in the whole scope of his remarks) mul- 
titudes of others, had no share in the management of this fund, he says, 
" Therefore this fund was managed throughout by the body of the faith- 
ful, the apostles taking nothing at all to do with it."* This is logic 
with a vengeance. Now we have examined the overwhelming argu- 
ment which he wished subjected to the " most severe scrutiny" — this 
argument which is the very "keystone to his arch," and we have found 
it nothing but the " baseless fabric of a vision." His first text does not 
prove his position. His second is confessedly silent on the point at is- 
sue, and his third actually proves the utter absurdity of the position it 
is adduced to support. His "labour of love," then, is all lost labour. 

Before our author proceeds to his arguments from the subordinate 
standards, he gives us his view T s respecting the business over which the 
deacons were appointed. He begins by telling us that it was not any* 
thing that had previously been in the hands either of the people or of 
the apostles. But it was the business " that had just then appeared, 
which was the subject of complaint." This we believe w 7 as the neglect 
of the Grecian widows. A small business truly. To preside over a 
neglect. This is a limitation to the deacon's office w T hich places him in 
a very narrow compass indeed. But we suppose he means (for his 
words w r ould generally require an interpreter) that they were appointed 
to minister to the wants of the Grecian widows, and nothing else. This 
is doubtless his view, although he states it in a most confused manner. 
But if attention to their wants previously was neither the business of 
the apostles, nor the people, how did they happen to he neglected ? Who 
neglected them? If it was nobody's business to minister to their wants 

they could not have been neglected. But they were neglected — and 

it must therefore have been the business either of the apostles or others 
to minister to them. But of what use could the appointment of these 
deacons have been to the Grecian widows, if they had no control of the 
fund out of which they were to be supplied. John tells us that the 
apostles "did not transfer the management of this fund to the deacons" 
because they themselves had no control over it. The deacons then dare 
not touch this money. What a sensible transaction this was, according 
to our author's representation, to appoint men to supply the temporal 
wants of a class of persons without the control of funds necessary for the 
purpose. What could they do? They might tell them they had been 
solemnly set apart to supply their wants, but had nothing to give them. 
Well might they reply, in the language of Job, " Miserable comforters 
are ye all." It can be nothing short of blasphemy to say that, men act- 
ing under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit w 7 ere capable of 
such folly. It is an absurdity too glaring " to deserve serious notice, to 
say that men of common sense would solemnly set apart seven men to 
supply the wants of certain persons without the control of the means ne- 
cessary for the purpose. But if they had control of the funds necessary 
for the purpose, they must have received control of them from the apos- 
tles, for they "appointed them over the business." And of course the 

* From this it would seem that the apostles were not believers, for " all that believed had an 
equal share in its management" according to John. 



( 36 ) 



apostles must previously have had control over these funds, for " no per* 
son can transfer to another that which he does not himself possess.' 7 
Here again we see the absurdity of our author's position that the apos- 
tles never assumed control of this fund. 

But suppose his view, that the supply of this need of the Grecian 
widows is the sole and only business over which the deacons were ap- 
pointed, to be correct — What then? What is the deacon's business 
now? To supply the wants of the church's poor? By no means. 
That would extend far beyond the "true limits of this appointment" 
according to our author, for there is "not a single hint given that an}" 
person or thing was neglected except the Grecian roidowsP Every 
person or thing having a claim on the ecclesiastical funds, then, must be 
attended to by others than the officers — except Grecian widows. The 
deacons, then, according to our author's limitations, were not appointed 
to take care of the poor, nor yet of widows, but solely and only to take 
care of Grecian widows. "All the other pecuniary need" that is 
all the other widows and all the other poor, and every other thing 
must be attended to by the body of the faithful," that is by trustees. 
It would be rather a small portion of the poor of the church in the 
United States, that would come within the sphere of the deacon, accord- 
ing to this plan. Premises which end in a conclusion so absurd must 
necessarily be false. 

We come now to notice his " arguments " from the subordinate stan- 
dards. On page 39, he says — 

"The Westminster divines do not say that the deacon has 'a special business.' They say 
that he is ' to take special care in distributing to the necessities of the poor.' And again, 'to 
take special care for the relief of the poor.' 

" And as this is all the business assigned to the deacons by the Westminster divines, they do by 
all means teach that ' this is his only business.' " 

This is certainly a curiosity in the way of logic. The Westminster 
divines say, that the deacon is to "take special care of the poor," there- 
fore, they teach by all means " that this is his only business." They 
enjoin special attention to the claims of the poor— therefore, they for- 
bid attention to the claims of others. Sound reasoning truly!! The 
fallacy here, as any " child in intellect" will perceive, is in assuming 
that the Westminster divines have professed to give in detail all the 
duties pertaining to the deacon's office. Had they done this, or had 
the church in adopting it so declared, there would have been some 
ground for this conclusion. But, since neither the Westminster di- 
vines in this formulary nor any where else, nor the Church of Scotland 
in their act adopting it nor in any other act, nor the Reformed Presby- 
terian Church have made any such pretensions, of course the argu- 
ment does not rise to the dignity of a sophism. The adopting act of 
the Church of Scotland guards carefully against the erroneous view of 
our author, by recognising the continued obligation of the "books of 
discipline" in which the duties of church officers are more fully set 
forth; and our terms of communion also guard against this view, in 
declaring that the Presbyterian form of church government is, "for 
substance," not in detail "justly exhibited" in the Westminster for- 
mulary " as it was received by the Church of Scotland." The West- 
minster divines then do not teach by all means, or by any means, that 
distributing to the necessities of the poor is the only business of the 
deacon. They do teach, that he is to take special care in distributing 
to their necessities, evidently, as we have shown, implying a general 



( 37 ) 



care in distributing to the necessity of others. As great stress seems 
to be laid on this phrase, "special care," by others as well as our 
author, it may not be amiss to refer to two or three examples of its 
use, to show that their " construction " is absurd. In the act of the 
Assembly of the Church of Scotland adopting the directory for wor- 
ship, it is said, that " the commissioners of this General Assembly shall 
also take special care for the timeous printing of this Directory. " 
Here we see it is pre-supposed that these commissioners had a care of 
other matters, besides the printing of the Directory, and a special care 
for that. But according to his construction, it was the only business of 
the commissioners of the General Assembly, to see to the printing of the 
Westminster Directory, and not a special business — "the word special 
not being applied to the business of" the commissioners "at all, but to 
the care with which they were to attend to that business." Again, in 
the act adopting the Directory for family worship, it is said that the 
General Assembly " doth appoint ministers and ruling elders in each 
congregation, to take special care that these directions be observed and 
followed." Now according to the construction of our author, we would 
be led to suppose that the only business of ministers and elders, is to see 
that the people attend to family worship. Nor does the reason he as- 
signs for the use of the word special in relation to a matter belonging 
to the Deacon's office, viz., that "the pastors and elders have a c#re,and 
hence it is said the deacons have a special care, they being ordained 
for that very purpose," — at all help his construction. For it is nowhere 
said, that others besides the commissioners of the General Assembly, 
have a care for the printing of the Directory — nor does it seem to be a 
fair inference that they were " ordained for that purpose." Neither is 
it said that others besides ministers and elders, are to take care that 
families observe the directions for worship — nor does it follow from the 
fact that they were to take special care in relation to this matter, that 
they were ordained for that very purpose, and that only. But the 
notion is really too silly to deserve any serious attention. * 

We have next a dissertation on the nature of the affairs of a congrega 
tion which we suppose he intends for another argument. f After quo- 

* While our author has the " grammatical construction " of the phrase " special care " under 
consideration, he pays a high compliment to the covenanted fathers who framed the Second Book 
of Discipline. He invites particular attention to what he is about to say. " Let it be observed," 
says he, evidently intending to make a very remarkable observation, — < ; Let it be observed that in 
the Second Book of Discipline, to which some individuals have conceived an extraordinary attach- 
ment of late, it is mentioned among other benefits that would flow from the deacons managing the 
temporalities, that ' it shall be a great ease and commodity to the whole common people in building 
of bridges, and other like public works,' " Then he tells us that this might be applied to rail 
roads, &c, by ultra individuals who are easily found, and the form of church government would 
not convince them of their error, and here he stops, evidently imagining he has said some great 
thing. 

.Now this sneer comes with a peculiar grace from one who makes such high professions of re- 
spect for " the footsteps of the flock," as does our author, — and one, moreover, who is continually 
charging the author of' The Deacon' with maintaining new principles, new practices, a new sys- 
tem, and all sorts of new things. But aside from t lis, although he has made one of his "slight 
mistakes," in making the Second Book of Discipline attribute this ease of the people to the 
management of temporalities by deacons, yet if his construction were correct, it is hard to discover 
why he should object to it. If the management of the temporalities by deacons would free the 
people from building bridges, railroads, &c. the "man" must be fond of having heavy burdens 
on his shoulders, when he objects to it on that account. We have sometimes heard it objected to 
this doctrine, that the deacons would burden and oppress the people, but this is the first time we 
have heard it brought as an objection, that this system would free the people from some heavy 
burdens. Could such happy results flow from this system, we, in Pennsylvania, would certainly 
iiail its advent with feelings of unmingled joy. 

i Page 42. 



( 38 ) 



ting from the form of government the cTause which asserts that these 
" affairs " are to be well ordered by the officers, and also a passage from 
i the Deacon ' in relation to these affairs, our author is unusually racy 
and witty in his remarks. He does not know the "necessary limits " 
of an "unlimited expression/ 5 but it is perfectly clear to him that 4 the 
Deacon' gives a very unlimited explanation to a "limited expres- 
sion." Indeed, John. And your own limited explanations and un- 
limited expressions, would set very tmneeessary limitations to the 
deacon's office, as we have seen. You humbly! claim one item of an 
affair for the people — viz., the calling of a minister. Now it so hap- 
pens that this " affair," so far from being " transacted " by the people in- 
dependent of the officers, is " transacted," in a constituted session by the 
" well ordering" of a court still higher. The business of the people is 
to vote for the man of their choice, and that is all the power they have 
in the matter. If this part of our church order is an infringement on the 
rights of the people, why not try to have it expunged? But he says 
this quotation from the standards is not "an unlimited expression." 
Who said it was ? Not ( the Deacon.' He speaks of "affairs of a con- 
gregation " as an unlimited expression, contained in this quotation, but 
he is not so ignorant of the use of the language as to call the paragraph 
quoted " an unlimited expression." This is John's own manufacture. 
.But perhaps John means the affairs, when he says it "is not an un- 
limited expression — but limited by the clause, each according to his 
office;" for he says that the meaning " is perfectly plain, that the officers 
are to attend to all the affairs that are according to their offices." Now 
we beg leave to differ from our friend in this limited explanation. The 
passage does not say that the officers are to meet together to attend to 
ail those affairs that are according to their offices. This would involve 
an impossibility, for many affairs that accord with their respective of- 
fices must be attended to when they are not all " met together." But 
it says they are to meet together for the well ordering of the aflairs of 
the congregation, each according to his office" — showing that the well 
ordering -of congregational affairs, whether temporal or spiritual, is in 
accordance with the duties of their respective offices. If these affairs 
are to be ordered by the officers according to their respective offices, 
then those who hold no office have nothing to do with the ordering of 
the affairs. Thus another prop falls from under his building. 

Our author then gives the following quotations from c The Deacon/ 
viz. : 

" The least reflection will satisfy us that to remove entirely the management of the 
fiscal concerns of any society out of the hands of those who have the direction of its 
other affairs, would be unwise and unsafe. Such an arrangement any where would 
probably terminate by clashing- between these independent powers in the same body; 
for example, the legislature in a state so constituted might legislate, but in every in- 
stance where an appropriation was requisite to carry laws into effect, the will of the 
legislature might be thwarted by the fiscal officers, and rendered ineffectual." 

Then he says, " Now we endorse every word of this argument with 
our whole heart; it is unanswerable." John has got on the same track 
with the Deacon for once. Well, the position here taken by the Deacon 
is, that " to remove the management of the fiscal concerns of any society 
out of the hands of those who have the direction of its other affairs^, 
would be unwise and unsafe." And John endorses every word of this. 
We confess that after all our author has said against this very position^ 
(for his whole book is an attempt to overturn it,) we were not a little: 



( 39 ) 



surprised at his endorsement of every word, and his declaration that the 
argument is unanswerable. We have surely mistaken, most egregiously, 
the whole tenor of his performance, if it is not an attempt to show that 
the fiscal concerns of the church, ought not to be in the hands of those 
who have the direction of its other affairs. And when we came to this 
passage we had to read it over and over again, before we could believe 
that we had read it correctly. But there is no mistake about it; and if 
John will only stick to this admission, the controversy is at an end. 
And we do not see how he can in honour back out, for he has endorsed 
every word of it, and declared the argument in its favour unanswerable. 
He next goes on to make an application of this unanswerable argument 
to a congregation, and this he does in a manner that demolishes the 
trustee system, root and branch. He says, 

" Let us then observe that a congregation so constituted might make out calls for 
ministers, but in every instance an appropriation being requisite for carrying these 
calls into effect, the will of the congregation ' might be thwarted by the fiscal officers 
and rendered ineffectual,' and thus ' terminate by clashing between these independent 
powers in the same body.' " 

Hence trustees, whose powers are independent of those who have the 
direction of the other affafrs of the congregation, might thwart its will, 
and leave it without any mode of redress. 

He says, fourthly, that as the people have the making out of calls, they 
should therefore have the management of the fiscal concerns. He can- 
not here mean, that the people in their congregational capacity should 
have the management of these concerns; for he has admitted, that when 
they are managed by the representatives of the people, they are managed 
by the people, or to use his own words, " their acts are the acts of the 
people." Then it follows, as the regular officers of a congregation are 
the true representatives of the people, being chosen by them, and acting 
for them as well as in the name and by the authority of the Head of 
the church, their acts are the acts of the congregation. This, we think, 
the "man" cannot deny. If the election of trustees by the people 
would constitute them their representatives — which he maintains — much 
more does the election of ecclesiastical officers constitute them their 
representatives, for without them there can be no congregational organi- 
zation. And as they constitute a standing part of the organization, and 
are subject to the constitution and laws of the church and her courts, 
with them there can be no clashing. And as the Presbytery is a party 
to the contract for the payment of the minister's salary — the officers who 
are under its control must see to the fulfilment of its contract. After 
all this, John makes the most ludicrous exhibition of his incorrigible 
stupidity, in returning the question to its "sage propounder " (how 
w T itty,) for an answer. Why, " man," you have answered it yourself. 

In pursuing this subject still farther, (for the "man " seems to like it) 
he launches forth with a mighty splash, in a paragraph which, for 
"grammatical construction," elegance of diction, originality of thought, 
and force of argument is unsurpassed in the whole performance. It is 
rich and luscious. We give it entire. It is intended as a reply to a 
couple of questions asked by « the Deacon " to this effect — how do 
church officers acquire power over congregational temporalities in 
Synods and Presbyteries, if they have not power over such temporali- 
ties at all ? He says, 

^ "Now the answer to all this is furnished by "The Deacon" himself, in the prin- 
ciple exhibited above. The eldership as such, have no voice in seculiar affairs in a 



( 40 ) 



congregation, because they do not there manage the business that require the appro- 
priation of money; but in presbyteries and synods, they do manage the business that 
require appropriations of money to carry such business into effect; and hence they 
manage the fiscal concerns of these courts: And for the same reason they have a 
right to the control of whatever is necessary to carry out sessional business, such as 
the necessary expenses of the communion." &c. 

Not to mention seculiar for secular, which may possibly be a typo- 
graphical error, what a paragraph we have here! ! "The business that 
require appropriations of money," twice repeated in the space of three 
lines, shows a peculiar propensity for this sort of "grammatical con- 
struction." But what does all this jumble mean? The elders have no 
voice in the secular affairs of a congregation, because they do not 
there manage the business that "require" appropriations of money. 
But the business that "require" appropriations of money is the secu- 
lar business. His argument then runs thus — the eldership have no 
voice in the secular affairs of a congregation, because they have no 
voice in its secular affairs!! Or they do not manage the business that 
"require" appropriations of money, because they do not manage the 
business that "require" appropriations of money. This is the circu- 
lating syllogism on the very smallest circumference. Again, "in 
Presbyteries and Synods, they do manage the business that "re- 
quire" appropriations of money; — and hence they manage the fiscal 
concerns of these courts." That is, in Presbyteries and Synods they 
manage ecclesiastical temporalities; — hence in Presbyteries and Sy- 
nods they manage ecclesiastical temporalities. "And for the same 
reason they have a right to the control of whatever is necessary to 
carry out sessional business." That is, because they have a right to 
this control, we suppose. It would be an absurd proposition indeed 
that could not be proved in this way. Before leaving this subject, 
our learned author might have informed us, what are those "necessary 
expenses of the communion and so forth" of which he speaks, that 
are "necessary to carry out sessional business," and how they are to 
be distinguished from those "necessary expenses of the communion 
and so forth" that are not "necessary to carry out sessional busi- 
ness," — so that we might fairly understand his views respecting the 
"distinct rights of officers and people" in relation to this matter. 

But the error that lies at the bottom of all this miserable nonsense, 
and runs through the whole production, is that the interests of the 
officers and people in the church are entirely distinct and separate, 
if not diametrically opposite. And whenever it is fairly understood 
that the aims and objects and interests of officers and people are iden- 
tical — that they are all "members one of another," these hideous bug- 
bears that have been conjured up by designing men, will speedily dis- 
appear. Christ's officers will be regarded as his ministers, and His 
right to control, through them, the temporal as well as the spiritual 
affairs of His house, will be cheerfully acknowledged. We have now 
examined all our author's arguments, and have found that he has 
signally failed in every instance to prove his position. He has failed 
in proving that the body of the faithful in their congregational capa- 
city were the actual distributors. He has failed to prove that the 
native Hebrews, to the exclusion of those numerous believers who 
were natives of other places, were the actual distributors. He has 
failed to prove that "a few" of the native Hebrews chosen either by 
the other native Hebrews, or by the whole body of the believers were 



( 41 ) 



the actual distributors. He has failed to prove that the apostles were 
not the distributors. Consequently, according to the issue he himself 
has presented, he has failed to prove that the apostles did not at first 
manage the ecclesiastical fund, and on the appointment of the Deacons 
did not transfer the management of it to them. In his arguments from 
the subordinate standards, we have found in like manner, that he has 
utterly failed to prove that the Deacon's power is confined to the poor, 
and that it does not extend to all the temporalities of the church. 

We Qome now to a direct argument on the point at issue, and we 
maintain that 

The Deacon* s power extends to the temporalities of the church, 
and not to a part of these temporalities only. 

This we prove first from the scriptures, and second from the stan- 
dards of the church. 

First, the scriptures. 

And here we take the issue presented by our author, that if the 
entire fund for ecclesiastical purposes was managed by the apostles, 
and by them transferred to the Deacons, then it follows that the system 
advocated by 'the Deacon' is a scriptural system; — that is, the Dea- 
con's power extends to all the temporalities of the church, and not to 
a part of them only. 

The position to be proved then is, that the funds for ecclesiastical 
purposes was managed by the apostles, and by them transferred to the 
Deacons. 

1. This is proved by the fact that this money was "laid at the 
apostles' feet" for distribution. In Acts iv. 34, 35, we are informed 
that those who sold their possessions, &c, "brought the prices of the 
things that were sold and laid them at the apostles' feet, and distribu- 
tion was made unto every man according as he had need." And in 
verses 36 and 37, it is said that " Joses, surnamed Barnabas, having land, 
sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet." Again, 
in Acts v. 2, we find that Ananias and Sapphira sold a possession, 
"and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet," at the 
same time sinfully withholding the balance. Now unless we suppose 
that all the believers in those days were totally deranged, we cannot 
account for the fact that they uniformly laid their money at the feet 
of the apostles for distribution, unless the apostles had charge of the 
common stock, and were the distributors. Had any other persons, 
such as modern trustees, had the charge of this stock, the place to lay 
it would have been at their feet, and not at the feet of the apostles. 
If such persons had been chosen to take charge of and distribute this 
fund, the people certainly treated them with very little respect, when 
they carefully avoided placing it in their hands. To suppose then 
that not the apostles but a few of the people chosen for the purpose, 
had charge of this fund, is to suppose that the whole mass of the 
believers were deranged. 

2. The import of the repeated declarations that the property which 
constituted this fund was "laid at the apostles' feet," is, that the 
apostles had the management of it. That this is the import of this 
phrase is plain to any unprejudiced mind. To confirm it, let us 
take two or three examples of its use. In Acts xxii. 3, Paul says 
he was brought up "at the feet of Gamaliel." This shows clearly 
that Gamaliel had Paul in his charge, or under his care. Again, in 



( 42 ) 



Acts vii. 58, we are told that the witnesses against Stephen "laid 
down their clothes at a young man's feet whose name was Saul." 
This implies not only the wish of these witnesses that Saul should 
have charge of their clothes, but that he actually had the charge of 
them. For he himself so explains it in Chapter xxii. 20, where he 
says, "When the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was 
standing b}' and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of 
them that slew him." Here we see that his keeping the raiment, and 
the raiment being laid at his feet, are two modes of expressing the 
very same fact. Again, in Deuteronomy xi. 6, we have the testimony 
of our translators that this is the true meaning of the phrase. There 
we are informed that the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up 
Dathan and Abiram, and their households, and "all the substance that 
was in their possession." By referring to the margin we find that 
the literal rendering of the phrase translated "in their possession," is, 
"«/ their feet." This shows that the meaning of these two phrases 
is identical — in the margin we have the literal reading, and in the text 
a translation of the idiom of the original. The substance that was 
"at their feet," was the substance that was "in their possession." If, 
then, to be brought up at the feet of Gamaliel signifies, to be brought 
up under his care or management, or in his charge; — if raiment laid 
at Saul's feet, was in his possession or keeping; — and if the substance 
which was laid at the feet of Dathan and Abiram, was the substance 
in their possession: — then the money that was laid at the feet of the 
apostles w 7 as in their care, or under their control and management. 

3. This matter, however, is placed beyond all cavil by the case of 
Ananias and Sapphira. Acts v. 1 — 4. "But a certain man named 
Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part 
of the price, (his wife also being privy to it,) and brought a certain 
part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why 
hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back 
jjart of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine 
own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why 
hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou has not lied unto 
men, but unto God." These individuals, it appears, sold a possession 
and laid a part of the price at the apostles' feet, and kept back a part. 
Peter charges them with lying to the Holy Ghost in the matter. And 
because they thus retained a part of this dedicated property, and did 
not lay it at the apostles' feet, they are both, by the fearful judgment 
of God, suddenly struck dead. It is impossible to conceive how "the 
w T ill of the Head of the church," that this property should have been 
placed under the care of the apostles and managed by them, could 
have been more significantly expressed. And it is hard to discover 
wherein the conduct of these two individuals differed materially from 
that of our modern trustee men, who lay "at the feet" of Christ's 
officers only "a part" of the ecclesiastical property, and "keep back a 
part" to be managed by themselves or "a few of their number." 
Their system does certainly appear to have a very strong affinity to 
that of these two noted individuals. Nor will the disclaimer of our 
author that trustees are not " officers," at all free them from a full 
share of the odium attached to the founders of their system. For 
we have no evidence that they made any more pretensions to be eccle- 
siastical officers than our modern trustees. But this fact does not seem 



( 43 ) 



to have furnished any excuse in their case, although it seems to be of 
vast consequence with those who "keep back a part" novv-a-days. 

From this narrative we learn that the apostles claimed the control 
of the whole ecclesiastical fund — that those who held back a part of 
that which was dedicated for ecclesiastical purposes were guilty of most 
atrocious wickedness — that therein they lied to the Holy Ghost, and 
that they who commit such things provoke the indignation of an in- 
finitely just and holy God. The assertion of our author on page 30, 
that the apostles neither required this money to be laid at their feet, 
nor took the management of it when laid there, is a bold and reckless 
contradiction of the facts related in this narrative by the Spirit of in- 
spiration. That this fund was managed by the apostles, and that all 
were bound to place their contributions in their hands, is hereby proved 
beyond all contradiction. 

4. The "appointment of the Deacons "over this business" by the 
apostles, establishes the same truth, and also shows that power over this 
fund was transferred to them by the apostles. Acts vi. 3. Now 
whether these deacons were appointed over the whole daily ministra- 
tion or merely to supply the Grecian widows, is of no consequence so 
far as this argument is concerned. It was " in the daily ministration " 
that they were neglected. Of course it was out of the common fund — 
the fund that was daily distributed to others, that they should have 
been supplied. If then the business of the deacon was merely to sup- 
ply the wants of this class of widows, they must have had control of 
the fund out of which their supply was to be taken. The absurdity of 
appointing them over this business without this control is sufficiently 
obvious. And since the apostles appointed them over the business of 
distributing any part of this fund, they must themselves have had the 
control of it previously; "for no person can transfer to another that 
which he does not himself possess." But as we have seen by the case 
of Ananias and Sapphira that the apostles had the control of the whole 
of this fund, and not a part merely; and as they declare that on the ap- 
pointment of the deacons, they "will give themselves continually to 
prayer, and to the ministry of the word," it is evident they committed 
the whole daily ministration into the hands of the deacons, at least so 
far as their own attention thereto would interfere with the other more 
important functions of their office. So far the Scripture argument. 
Overturn it, John, if you can. 

ARGUMENT FROM THE SUBORDINATE STANDARDS. 

1. Our first argument is taken from the declarations in the form of 
church government, that " it belongs," to the deacon's office, " to take 
special care in distributing to the necessities of the poor," and that he 
is " to take special care for the relief of the poor." 

It cannot be denied that the funds, in the distribution of which, the 
deacons are to take special care, and out of which they are to relieve 
the poor, are the ecclesiastical funds. If they can distribute only pri- 
vate property, then they have no official power at all, for any private 
individual can do this. But they have a right to distribute ecclesias- 
tical funds to the necessities of the poor, and hence they have control 
of these funds, for no man can rightfully distribute that over which he 
has no control. 

2. The form of church government also declares that the officers of 
a congregation — the deacons as well as the others — "are to meet toge- 



( 44 ) 



ther at convenient and set times, for the well-ordering of the affairs of 
that congregation, each according to his office." 

From this we learn, first, that the officers, — pastor, elders, and dea- 
cons are to meet together. Second, that the purpose for which they 
are to meet is the well-ordering of the affairs of the congregation. 
And, third, that this well-ordering or managing of these affairs is in 
accordance with their respective offices. It is not said that the officers 
are to manage these affairs in so far as they are in accordance with 
their offices — but that they are to order well the congregational affairs 
according to their respective offices. What particular affairs belong to 
the elders, and what to the deacons, we do not in this discussion un- 
dertake to decide. That the management of the affairs, — the temporal 
as well as the spiritual, — is in accordance with the duties of church 
officers, is sufficient for our purpose to know. 

3. Our next proof that the deacons, or the officers of the dhurch have 
the right to manage her temporalities, is drawn from the acts of the 
general Assembly of the church of Scotland adopting the Westminster 
formularies. Here let it be borne in mind that the Reformed Presby- 
terian church is bound to these formularies as they were received by 
the church of Scotland. And first, the act adopting the form of go- 
vernment states as one chief argument for its adoption, that the gene- 
ral Assembly are " most desirous and solicitous of the preservation of 
the form of kirk government, according to the word of God, books of 
discipline, fyc." And by referring to the second book of discipline, 
chapter viii., we find it asserted that, the deacon's " office and power 
is to receive and distribute the whole ecclesiastical goods, unto them 
to whom they are appointed." And in chapter ix., that " the goods 
ecclesiastical ought to be collected and distributed by the deacons as 
the word of God appoints." And that, "in the apostolical kirk, the 
deacons w r ere appointed to collect and distribute what sum soever was 
collected of the faithful." And again, that " these collections were not 
only of that which was collected in manner of alms — but of other goods, 
&c, the price ivhereof was brought to the feet of the apostles."* Now 
since the general Assembly of the church of Scotland adopted the 
Westminster form of government in consequence of their great desire 
and solicitude for the preservation of church government according to 
the books of discipline, of which the above are important provisions, 
of course they intended that the deacons should receive and distribute, 
or in other words, manage, the whole ecclesiastical property, as these 
provisions require. Nothing can be plainer than this. But second, 
the act adopting the directory for worship provides that it " shall be no 
prejudice to the order and practice of this kirk, in such particulars as 
are appointed by the books of discipline, fyc, and are not otherwise 
ordered and appointed in the Directory." Now by the books of dis- 
cipline as above quoted, the deacons are to collect and distribute the 
whole ecclesiastical goods. But the collection and distribution of these 
goods, are not otherwise ordered and appointed in the directory. 
Hence they are still to be collected and distributed " by the deacons as 
the word of God appoints." This seems to us to be incontrovertible. 

* In immediate connexion with the above passages we find the following historical fact, namely, 
"This office continued in the deacons' hands, who intromitted with the whole goods of the kirk, 
aye, and until the estate thereof was corrupted by Antichrist." Those who are endeavouring to 
keep the church's goods out of the deacon's hands, may learn fiom this fact where to find their 
proper affinities. 



( 45 ) 



We might here refer to the acts adopting the confession of faith and 
catechisms, in each of which it is given as a reason for their adoption^ 
that they are " in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship,, 
discipline, and government of this kirk;" — and we might also refer to 
the solemn league and covenant, which binds to the preservation of 
religion in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, as then pro- 
fessed by the church of Scotland, while it binds to endeavour the re- 
formation of religion in these particulars, in other churches; but we 
deem it unnecessary, as the above arguments seem to us to be perfectly 
conclusive. 

4. The testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Britain 
explicitly asserts that "Deacons are associated with the teaching and 
ruling elders in distributing to the necessities of the poor, and ma- 
naging other temporalities in the church." The temporalities of 
the church, then, must necessarily be under their control. And the 
church in the United States explicitly approves of the testimony of the 
Reformed Covenanted church in Britain and Ireland."* There seems 
to us to be no possible way to evade the force of this argument. 

5. The testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in this 
country, asserts that " the Deacon has no power except about the tem- 
poralities of the church." This assertion being in the form of a limi- 
tation, shows that the deacon's power extends to all the temporalities 
of the church, for it would be an absurdity to limit his power to the 
management of temporalities if it was confined within narrower limits. 
A similar expression in the historical part, viz., that deacons have " no 
authority in ecclesiastical proceedings, any further than as they respect 
temporalities," very clearly proves the same position. Of course they 
have authority in ecclesiastical proceedings as far as they respect 
temporalities. It would be folly to say that their power extends no 
farther if it did not extend so far. 

We have now proved from the subordinate standards, that the dea- 
con's power extends to the whole ecclesiastical property, first, Because 
he is to supply the wants of the poor from the funds of the church. 
This he could not do unless he had control of these funds. Second, 
Because the affairs of a congregation, both temporal and spiritual, are 
to be ordered by the officers, each according to his office. The dea- 
cons having no authority in spiritual matters, must therefore have 
power in relation to the temporalities; otherwise it would not be true 
that this kind of officers are to meet with the others, for the well order- 
ing oiany of the affairs of the congregation. Third, because the church 
of Scotland in adopting the Westminster formularies,are careful to guard 
against the erroneous idea, that thereby they set aside their own re- 
ceived order, except in such particulars as are otherwise expressly 
ordered and appointed in these formularies. And the deacon's power 
being clearly set forth in the received order of the church of Scotland, 
and not otherwise ordered in the Westminster formularies, he still re- 
tains his authority over the temporalities. Fourth, because the testi- 
mony of the Reformed church in the British isles, of which the church 
in the United States has distinctly approved, asserts that deacons are 
associated with the other officers in distributing to the necessities of 
the poor, and managing other temporalities in the church. And 
Fifth, because our own testimony limits the duties of the deacon to the 



See page 13. 



( 48 ) 

management of the temporalities, which would in fact be no limit at 
all, if his power was really confined to less than the whole ecclesiasti- 
cal goods. 

These arguments, very feebly presented indeed, carry conviction 
to our own mind, and we do not see how they can be resisted. Indeed 
the whole discussion is rather a statement of facts than a process of 
reasoning. 

Although raised in a congregation where the office of the deacon was 
entirely neglected, the writer has long been fully convinced of the im- 
portance, necessity, and imperative duty of" keeping entire this ordi- 
nance " of God's appointment. And he hopes, ere long, to see this 
officer in all the congregations of our beloved Zion — when those who 
are now professedly deacon men, but practically anti-deacon, will 
live more consistently with their avowed principles. 



APPENDIX A. 



The following quotation from Stevenson's reply to Carson, pub- 
lished in 1S10, in Londonderry, will show what a ruling elder of 
eminent intelligence and piety thought of the omission of deacons in 
Presbyterian congregations:* — 

"But I doubt it will be difficult still for you to prove your asser- 
tion, namely, that Presbyterians ivant the third. Nor yet do I see 
how you attempt to do it, either from the divine institution of pres- 
bytery, and her officers in the scripture, or yet from their duplicate, 
our form of church government. In both which the different officers 
which the church's Head thought necessary for the perfecting of the 
body are specified, -and the deacon taken in, as essential to the perfect 
organization of the same. Yet for the purpose of supporting your 
charge, perhaps you may reply, and not without some ground, that 
you really know some Presbyterian congregations that have not dea- 
cons. But I hope you will permit me to ask here whether )^ou think 
it is as Presbyterians or as apostates from presbytery that they live in 
this neglect; if it should happen to be the latter, then your assertion 
falls to the ground. For let me tell you, that Presbyterians, as such, 
cannot want deacons, except they be disorganized by persecution or 
otherwise. You know that the people of God may fall into sin, but 
it is not as the people of God that they sin, or are prone to it, but as 
the descendants of fallen Adam. Thus the apostle, when speaking of 
the power of indwelling sin, and at the same time personifying his re- 
newed part, says, * It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in 
me.' So it is no more Presbyterians that live in this neglect, but 
apostates from it. "t 

* Letters addressed to the Rev. Alexander Carson; being an attempt to vindicate Presbyterian- 
ism from the aspersions cast upon it. By And. Stevenson. Londonderry, 1810. 
t This quotation ought to have been inserted as a note on page 12. 



( 47 ) 



We subjoin two more quotations from the same work. The first, 
for the purpose of presenting Mr. Stevenson's views respecting the 
connexion of the various offices in the church; the second, to show 
what kind of Presbyterians he esteemed such as would confound the 
deacon's office with that of the ruling elder. 

" But you say that 'a lay elder is composed of a New Testament 
deacon, and the half of a New Testament elder or pastor, as he is a 
church ruler.' Here, with humble diffidence, I would suggest that 
God, the fountain of all power, hath included all inferior power and 
office of the same kind in the superior. Thus a general, if need be, 
may in the day of battle lawfully act as a subaltern. A peer of the 
realm may act as an inferior magistrate, when necessary, but none may 
lawfully reverse this order. Thus we find the apostles exercising 
themselves in all the inferior ecclesiastical offices, even down to a dea- 
con. But if any would reverse this order, it would be at their peril. 
Of consequence the elder's and deacon's office is included in the pastors, 
yet neither of those may usurp the office of the pastor. Thus the dea- 
con's office is included in the ruling elder's, and yet the deacon has no 
rule in the church, nor is the ruling elder's office founded upon his. • 
You say, in page 45, that 'no man may combine any two of these 
offices more than make a new order over the rest.' But if the church's 
Head has combined them, in the manner above described, dare you 
call in question the combination ? If you would, might I not ask you, 
like Paul, in another case, ' Nay but, man, who art thou that repliest 
against God V 

" In page 41, you say, 'As to the scriptural authority of lay elders, 
some refer us to the office of the deacon, the name is not scriptural, say 
they, yet the office is.' It is a pity, sir, that it was not convenient for 
you to specify who these some are, that refer us to the deacon's office 
for the scripture authority of the ruling elder. But, I here appeal to 
yourself if this is not your mode to insinuate what answers a turn 
without producing proof. I think this is done, not less than three 
times, in this and the following page. But seeing you do not say po- 
sitively who these some are, that speak thus, permit me to tell you 
that they are not Presbyterians, because your assertion is neither con- 
sistent with presbytery nor common sense. 

" You again ask, ' If he be the deacon, why has he been called elder V 
Pray, sir, who called him [the ruling elder] the deacon ? it was not any 
of our standards nor acts of assembly; and, therefore, if ever you heard 
any one speak so, probably it has been one that has made an elopement 
from presbytery, and now thinking to apologize for his apostacy, mis- 
represents things thus, and occupies the seat of the scorner." 



APPENDIX B. 



The following extracts from M'Leod's Ecclesiastical Catechism* 
pages 45, 46, 47, will be new to many of our readers: 

75. What is the object of the deacon's office'? 

The sole design of appointing deacons in the church, is to remove the burden 
of attention to its temporal concerns from the ministers and elders, when it be- 
comes embarrassing to them : deacons are appointed to manage the funds, in- 
spect the state, and serve the tables of the poor.* 

* Acts vi. 2, 3: "It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables — look 
ye out men; whom we may appoint over this business." 

76. What need has the church for such an office 1 

Christian congregations should maintain such persons as are incapable of pro* 
viding for themselves the necessaries of life; discreet officers are, of course, ne- 
cessary to manage the funds which may be raised for that purpose. 

77. Is there any scripture warrant for this office'? 

The scriptures declare the need of the church for such officers jt their qualifi- 
cations ;| the manner of appointing them j§ and the fact of their existence in or- 
ganized churches. II 

t Acts vi. 1 : " When the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring — 
because their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations." t 1 Tim. iii. 8 : " Likewise must 
the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre." 
§ Acts vi. 5; "And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen," &e t 
|| Phil. i. 1 : " To all the saints which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." 

78. What are the qualifications necessary for a Christian deacon ? 

The necessary qualifications are piety, integrity, diligence, and respectability. 1" 
H I Tim. iii. 8 — 12: " Not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure 
conscience— being found blameless — ruling their children and their own houses well." 

79. Has the deacon any power to exercise church discipline? 

The deacon has no authority to preach the word, or exercise church discipline] 
as a deacon, his official duty entirely respects temporal affairs. # * 

** Rom. xii 8: " He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity." Acts vi. 2, 3: "It is not rea» 
son that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables — look ye out men; whom we may 
appoint over this business." 

80. Is the sole right of managing the pecuniary affairs of the congregation 
lodged in the deacon's hands? 

The apostles were the primary depositaries of power, and after them, teaching 
elders are competent to the management of all ecclesiastical concerns: ruling 
elders are their helps; and the deacons the help of both: the apostles and elders 
had in trust the collections made for the poor. ft 

ft Acts xi. 30: " And sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul" 



THE ENB« 



t 



